Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Important articles, websites, quotes, information etc. that can come in handy when discussing or debating religious or science-related topics

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2011-02-11 07:54am

My old message board has been restored to functionality by the hosting service I used (after three long years), enabling me to gain access to my reference thread containing text and links to Civil War documents, particularly those relating to slavery and its relevance to the Confederate secession and prosecution of the war. While some of the posts are a little disjointed, as they are simply thrown together by rough category with a smattering of the wording I have occasion to use repeatedly, I see no reason not to share, and I think the compilation will be safer from random SQL errors here anyway. So without further ado, the tools I use to bash Confederate revisionists into the ground.
Mississippi: Declaration of the Causes of Secession wrote:A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
Georgia: Declaration of the Causes of Secession wrote:The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States.Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

[Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]
Texas: Declaration of the Causes of Secession wrote:A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress,

Yeah, that's kind of what the majority does in a republic. Moving on.
Texas: Declaration of the Causes of Secession wrote:and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.
[]South Carolina: Declaration of the Causes of Secession[/url] wrote:Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

<Snip long and largely inaccurate history lecture>

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made.
The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

[Committee signatures]
Alexander H. Stephens: Cornerstone Address wrote:March 21, 1861
We are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras in the history of modern civilization.

... we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world-seven States have, within the last three months, thrown off an old Government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. This new Constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited.

In reference to it, I make this first general remark: It amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and privileges. All the great principles of Magna Chartal are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old Constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated.... So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ....

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo-it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first Government ever instituted upon principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many Governments have been founded upon the principles of certain classes; but the classes thus enslaved, were of the same race, and in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, [note: A reference to Genesis, 9:20-27, which was used as a justification for slavery] is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite-then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is the best, not only for the superior but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them. For His own purposes He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained, when conformed to his laws and degrees, in the formation of Governments as well as in all things else. Our Confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief stone of the corner" in our new edifice.
Constitution of the Confederate States, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 wrote:No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Parts in red are relevant. The section of the Texas Declaration in orange is a bald faced lie, as the territories were under Federal administration, not any sort of joint administration by the state governments. The section of the Texas Declaration in blue admits that Texas surrendered her separate national character.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America specifically forbids any law restricting slavery in its first Article, Section 9, Clause 4. The Confederate Constitution is practically a copy of the United States Constitution. I don't think that change was coincidental. The proposal was made at the Convention to bar free states from entering the Confederacy, but the motion was narrowly refused by the delegates, out of a hope that Confederate control of the mouth of the Mississippi would coerce the states along the river to secede and join them. Measures to prevent or complicate the manumission of slaves were also proposed. I'll have to do some checking to see whether or not any of them were passed. R Barnwell Rhett, chairman of the Constitutional Convention in Montgomery, declared his wish to form a slaveholders' republic, a wish that he largely got.

In conclusion, do not try to tell me that the above does not constitute a declaration on the part of the seceding states to preserve slavery as the primary motive for secession, because that's precisely what they are. The Confederate Constitution.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2011-02-11 07:56am

Constitution of the Confederate States wrote:Constitution of the Confederate States of America
March 11, 1861

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

Article I

Section I. All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a Congress of the Confederate States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sec. 2. (I) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.

(2) No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States, and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(3) Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Confederacy, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all slaves. ,The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the Confederate States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every fifty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of South Carolina shall be entitled to choose six; the State of Georgia ten; the State of Alabama nine; the State of Florida two; the State of Mississippi seven; the State of Louisiana six; and the State of Texas six.

(4) When vacancies happen in the representation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

(5) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

Sec. 3. (I) The Senate of the Confederate States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen for six years by the Legislature thereof, at the regular session next immediately preceding the commencement of the term of service; and each Senator shall have one vote.

(2) Immediately after they shall be assembled, in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year; of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year; and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year; so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or other wise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

(3) No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years, and be a citizen of the Confederate States; and who shall not, then elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.

(4) The Vice President of the Confederate States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.

(5) The Senate shall choose their other officers; and also a president pro tempore in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the Confederate states.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Confederate States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Confederate States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.

Sec. 4. (I) The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, subject to the provisions of this Constitution; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the times and places of choosing Senators.

(2) The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year; and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall, by law, appoint a different day.

Sec. 5. (I) Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.

(2) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number, expel a member.

(3) Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

(4) Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Sec. 6. (I) The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the Confederate States. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 'o Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the Confederate States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the Confederate States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. But Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department.

Sec. 7. (I) All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.

(2) Every bill which shall have passed both Houses, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the Confederate States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respective}y. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not be a law. The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

(3) Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of both Houses may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the Confederate States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him; or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of both Houses, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in case of a bill.

Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-

(I) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

(2) To borrow money on the credit of the Confederate States.

(3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

(4) To establish uniform laws of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the Confederate States; but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.

(5) To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

(6) To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the Confederate States.

(7) To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the Ist day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.

(8) To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

(9) To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.

(10) To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.

(11) To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.

(12) To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.

(13) To provide and maintain a navy.

(14) To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(15) To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Confederate States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

(16) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the Confederate States; reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

(17) To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the Confederate States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the . erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and

(18) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Confederate States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

(3) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

(5) No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

(6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.

(7) No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.

(8) No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

(9) Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.

(10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

(11) No title of nobility shall be granted by the Confederate States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

(12) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(13) A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(14) No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

(15) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

(16) No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(17) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

(18) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact so tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the Confederacy, than according to the rules of common law.

(19) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

(20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

Sec. 10. (I) No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.

(2) No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.

(3) No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.


Section I. (I) The executive power shall be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible. The President and Vice President shall be elected as follows:

(2) Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the Confederate States shall be appointed an elector.

(3) The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the Government of. the Confederate States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall,in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the 4th day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in case of the death, or other constitutional disability of the President.

(4) The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

(5) But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the Confederate States.

(6) The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the Confederate States.

(7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate; States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election.

(8) In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President; and the Congress may, by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.

(9) The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the Confederate States, or any of them.

(10) Before he enters on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

Sec. 2. (I) The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the Confederate States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the Confederate States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the Confederate States, except in cases of impeachment.

(2) He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties; provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the Confederate States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

(3) The principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, and all persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the Executive Departments may be removed at any time by the President, or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapacity. inefficiency, misconduct, or neglect of duty; and when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together with the reasons therefor.

(4) The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session; but no person rejected by the Senate shall be reappointed to the same office during their ensuing recess.

Sec. 3. (I) The President shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Confederacy, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them; and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the Confederate States.

Sec. 4. (I) The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the Confederate States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Section I. (I) The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Sec. 2. (I) The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of the Confederate States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Confederate States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State, where the State is plaintiff; between citizens claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects; but no State shall be sued by a citizen or subject of any foreign state.

(2) In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

(3) The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Sec. 3. (I) Treason against the Confederate States shall consist only in levying war against.them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

(2) The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.


Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

(2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Sec. 3. (I) Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.

(2) The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make allneedful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

(4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.


Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.


I. The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.

2. All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the Confederate States under this Constitution, as under the Provisional Government.

3. This Constitution, and the laws of the Confederate States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the Confederate States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

4. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the Confederate States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the Confederate States.

5. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people of the several States.

6. The powers not delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people thereof.


I. The ratification of the conventions of five States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

2. When five States shall have ratified this Constitution, in the manner before specified, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall prescribe the time for holding the election of President and Vice President; and for the meeting of the Electoral College; and for counting the votes, and inaugurating the President. They shall, also, prescribe the time for holding the first election of members of Congress under this Constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until the assembling of such Congress, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall continue to exercise the legislative powers granted them; not extending beyond the time limited by the Constitution of the Provisional Government.

Adopted unanimously by the Congress of the Confederate States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, sitting in convention at the capitol, the city of Montgomery, Ala., on the eleventh day of March, in the year eighteen hundred and Sixty-one.

HOWELL COBB, President of the Congress.

South Carolina: R. Barnwell Rhett, C. G. Memminger, Wm. Porcher Miles, James Chesnut, Jr., R. W. Barnwell, William W. Boyce, Lawrence M. Keitt, T. J. Withers.

Georgia: Francis S. Bartow, Martin J. Crawford, Benjamin H. Hill, Thos. R. R. Cobb.

Florida: Jackson Morton, J. Patton Anderson, Jas. B. Owens.

Alabama: Richard W. Walker, Robt. H. Smith, Colin J. McRae, William P. Chilton, Stephen F. Hale, David P. Lewis, Tho. Fearn, Jno. Gill Shorter, J. L. M. Curry.

Mississippi: Alex. M. Clayton, James T. Harrison, William S. Barry, W. S. Wilson, Walker Brooke, W. P. Harris, J. A. P. Campbell.

Louisiana: Alex. de Clouet, C. M. Conrad, Duncan F. Kenner, Henry Marshall.

Texas: John Hemphill, Thomas N. Waul, John H. Reagan, Williamson S. Oldham, Louis T. Wigfall, John Gregg, William Beck Ochiltree.
Lincoln's Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction wrote:December 8, 1863


Whereas, in and by the Constitution of the United States, it is provided that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;" and

Whereas a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal State governments of several States have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed and are now guilty of treason against the United States; and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason, laws have been enacted by Congress declaring forfeitures and confiscation of property and liberation of slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated, and also declaring that the President was thereby authorized at any time thereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may have participated in the existing rebellion, in any State or part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such times and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public welfare; and

Whereas the congressional declaration for limited and conditional pardon accords with well-established judicial exposition of the pardoning power; and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of the United States has issued several proclamations, with provisions in regard to the liberation of slaves; and

Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in said rebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States, and to reinaugurate loyal State governments within and for their respective States; therefore,

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or by implication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and in property cases where rights of third parties shall have intervened, and upon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oath, and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit:

"I, --------, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passed during the existing rebellion with reference to slaves, so long and so far as not repealed, modified or held void by Congress, or by decision of the Supreme Court; and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all proclamations of the President made during the existing rebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modified or declared void by decision of the Supreme Court. So help me God."

The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are all who are, or shall have been, civil or diplomatic officers or agents of the so-called confederate government; all who have left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; all who are, or shall have been, military or naval officers of said so-called confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army, or of lieutenant in the navy; all who left seats in the United States Congress to aid the rebellion; all who resigned commissions in the army or navy of the United States, and afterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in any way in treating colored persons or white persons, in charge of such, otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war, and which persons may have been found in the United States service, as soldiers, seamen, or in any other capacity.

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known, that whenever, in any of the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, a number of persons, not less than one-tenth in number of the votes cast in such State at the Presidential election of the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty, each having taken the oath aforesaid and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voter by the election law of the State existing immediately before the so-called act of secession, and excluding all others, shall re-establish a State government which shall be republican, and in no wise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the State, and the State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the constitutional provision which declares that "The United States shall guaranty to every State in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence."

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that any provision which may be adopted by such State government in relation to the freed people of such State, which shall recognize and declare their permanent freedom, provide for their education, and which may yet be consistent, as a temporary arrangement, with their present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class, will not be objected to by the national Executive. And it is suggested as not improper, that, in constructing a loyal State government in any State, the name of the State, the boundary, the subdivisions, the constitution, and the general code of laws, as before the rebellion, be maintained, subject only to the modifications made necessary by the conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if any, not contravening said conditions, and which may be deemed expedient by those framing the new State government.

To avoid misunderstanding, it may be proper to say that this proclamation, so far as it relates to State governments, has no reference to States wherein loyal State governments have all the while been maintained. And for the same reason, it may be proper to further say that whether members sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted to seats, constitutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses, and not to any extent with the Executive. And still further, that this proclamation is intended to present the people of the States wherein the national authority has been suspended, and loyal State governments have been subverted, a mode in and by which the national authority and loyal State governments may be re-established within said States, or in any of them; and, while the mode presented is the best the Executive can suggest with his presentimpressions, it must not be understood that no other possible mode would be acceptable.

Given under my hand at the city, of Washington, the 8th. day of December, A.D. one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States of America the eighty-eighth.


By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State
Abraham Lincoln wrote:If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 wrote:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions

So if insurrection is legal, why is the federal government empowered to suppress it, hmmm?
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 wrote:The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Again, if rebellion is legal, why the injunction against it?
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 wrote:No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Confederacy is out.
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 wrote:No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
As is keeping all those troops they were keeping. Following so far?
United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 wrote:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
So, who's running the Army again? Ain't the states.
United States Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 wrote:Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Now then, who was levying war against the United States? Oh, that's right...
United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 wrote:The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
This one's the kicker. When taken in the context of the Supremacy Clause, we see that the states cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Secession is such a violation. Here is that Clause, in case you've forgotten:
United States Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2 wrote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2011-02-11 08:03am

Declaration of Independence wrote:IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
On John C. Calhoun.

"It is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. It is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike;--a reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous, and deserving; and not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded, and vicious to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it." - John C. Calhoun
We have the written testimony of an honorable man, still living,
Commodore Charles Stewart, U. S. N., that John C. Calhoun was a
conscious traitor to the Union as early as 1812. In December of that
year, Captain Stewart's ship, the Constitution, was refitting at the
Washington Navy Yard, and the Captain was boarding at Mrs. Bushby's,
with Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun, and many other Republican members.
Conversing one evening with the new member from South Carolina, he
told him that he was "puzzled" to account for the close alliance which
existed between the Southern planters and the Northern Democracy.

"You," said Captain Stewart,

"in the South and Southwest, are decidedly the aristocratic
portion of this Union; you are so in holding persons in
perpetuity in slavery; you are so in every domestic quality,
so in every habit in your lives, living, and actions, so in
habits, customs, intercourse, and manners; you neither work
with your hands, heads, nor any machinery, but live and have
your living, not in accordance with the will of your
Creator, but by the sweat of slavery, and yet you assume all
the attributes, professions, and advantages of democracy."

Mr. Calhoun, aged thirty, replied thus to Captain Stewart, aged

"I see you speak through the head of a young statesman, and
from the heart of a patriot, but you lose sight of the
politician and the sectional policy of the people. I admit
your conclusions in respect to us Southrons. That we are
essentially aristocratic, I cannot deny; but we can and do
yield much to democracy. This is our sectional policy; we
are from necessity thrown upon and solemnly wedded to that
party, however it may occasionally clash with our feelings,
for the conservation of our interests. It is through our
affiliation with that party in the Middle and Western States
that we hold power; but when we cease thus to control this
nation through a disjointed democracy, or any material
obstacle in that party which shall tend to throw us out of
that rule and control, we shall then resort to the
dissolution of the Union. The compromises in the
Constitution, under the circumstances, were sufficient for
our fathers, but, under the altered condition of our country
from that period, leave to the South no resource but
dissolution; for no amendments to the Constitution could be
reached through a convention of the people under their
three-fourths rule."

Probably all of our readers have seen this conversation in print
before. But it is well for us to consider it again and again. It is
the key to all the seeming inconsistencies of Mr. Calhoun's career. He
came up to Congress, and took the oath to support the Constitution,
secretly resolved to break up the country just as soon as the Southern
planters ceased to control it for the maintenance of their peculiar
One fact alone suffices to prove that, in bringing on the
Nullification troubles, Calhoun's motive was factious. When General
Jackson saw the coming storm, he did two things. First, he prepared to
maintain the authority of the United States by force. Secondly, he
used all his influence with Congress to have the cause of Southern
discontent removed. General Jackson felt that the argument of the
anti-tariff men, in view of the speedy extinction of the national
debt, was unanswerable. He believed it was absurd to go on raising ten
or twelve millions a year more than the government could spend, merely
for the sake of protecting Northern manufactures. Accordingly, a bill
was introduced which aimed to do just what the nullifiers had been
clamoring for, that is, to reduce the revenue to the amount required
by the government. If Mr. Calhoun had supported this measure, he could
have carried it. He gave it no support; but exerted all his influence
in favor of the Clay Compromise, which was expressly intended to save
as much of the protective system as could be saved, and which reduced
duties gradually, instead of suddenly. Rather than permit the abhorred
administration to have the glory of pacificating the country, this
lofty Roman stooped to a coalition with his personal enemy, Henry
Clay, the champion and the soul of the protectionist party.
He then proceeded to
deliver an ordinary protectionist speech; without, however, entering
upon the questioner constitutional right. He merely dwelt upon the
great benefits to be derived from affording to our infant manufactures
"immediate and ample protection." That the Constitution interposed no
obstacle, was assumed by him throughout. He concluded by observing,
that a flourishing manufacturing interest would "bind together more
closely our widely-spread republic," since

"it will greatly increase our mutual dependence and
intercourse, and excite an increased attention to internal
improvements,--a subject every way so intimately connected
with the ultimate attainment of national strength and the
perfection of our political institutions."

He further observed, that "the liberty and union of this country are
inseparable," and that the destruction of either would involve the
destruction of the other. He concluded his speech with these words:
"Disunion,--this single word comprehends almost the sum of our
political dangers, and against it we ought to be perpetually guarded."
George Washington, June 8, 1783 wrote:It is indispensable to the happiness of the individual states, that there should be lodged somewhere, a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the...republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every state, with the...proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue; that whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the sovereign authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the liberty and independency of America, and the authors of them treated accordingly....[W]ithout an entire conformity to the spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an independent power.
George Washington to John Jay, August 1786 wrote:I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged somewhere a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the state governments extends over the several states.
George Washington, November 1787 wrote:"[T]here are characters who prefer disunion, or separate confederacies to the general government which is offered to them...but as nothing in my conception is more to be deprecated than disunion, or these separate confederacies, my voice, as far as it will extend, shall be offered in favor of [the Union]."
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1794 wrote:"I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking of the union into two or more parts."
George Washington, in relation to the Whiskey Rebellion wrote:"If the laws are to be trampled upon with impunity, and a minority is to dictate to the majority, there is an end put, at one stroke, to republican government."
Thomas Jefferson, writing of George Washington wrote:My letter to the President [May 23, 1792] , directed to him at Mount Vernon, came to him here [Philadelphia] . He told me of this, and that he would take occasion of speaking with me on the subject. He did so this day [July 10] . He began by observing that he had put it off from day to day, because the subject was painful, to wit, his remaining in office, which that letter solicited. He said that the declaration he had made when he quitted his military command, of never again acting in public life, was sincere. That, however, when he was called on to come forward to set the present government in motion, it appeared to him that circumstances were so changed, as to justify a change in his resolution; he was made to believe that in two years all would be well in motion, and he might retire. At the end of two years he found some things still to be done. At the end of the third year, he thought it was not worth while to disturb the course of things, as in one year more his office would expire, and he was decided then to retire. Now he was told there would still be danger in it. Certainly, if he thought so, he would conquer his longing for retirement. But he feared it would be said his former professions of retirement had been mere affectation, and that he was like other men, when once in office he could not quit it. He was sensible, too, of a decay of his hearing; perhaps his other faculties might fall off, and he not be sensible of it. That with respect to the existing causes of uneasiness, he thought there were suspicions against a particular party, which had been carried a great deal too far; there might be desires, but he did not believe there were designs to change the form of government into a monarchy; that there might be a few who wished it in the higher walks of life, particularly in the great cities, but that the main body of the people in the eastern States were as steadily for republicanism as in the southern. That the pieces lately published, and particularly in Freneau's paper, seemed to have in view the exciting opposition to the government. That this had taken place in Pennsylvania as to the Excise law, according to information he had received from General Hand. That they tended to produce a separation of the Union, the most dreadful of all calamities, and that whatever tended to produce anarchy, tended, of course, to produce a resort to monarchical government. He considered those papers as attacking him directly, for he must be a fool indeed to swallow the little sugar plums here and there thrown out to him. That in condemning the administration of the government, they condemned him. for if they thought there were measures pursued contrary to his sentiment, they must conceive him too careless to attend to them, or too stupid to understand them. That though, indeed, he had signed many acts which he did not approve in all their [Col 2] parts, yet he had never put his name to one which he did not think, on the whole, was eligible. That as to the Bank, which had been an act of so much complaint, until there was some infallible criterion of reason, a difference of opinion must be tolerated. He did not believe the discontents extended far from the seat of government. He had seen and spoken with many people in Maryland and Virginia in his late journey. He found the people contented and happy. He wished, however, to be better informed on this head. If the discontent were more extensive than he supposed, it might be that the desire that he should remain in the government was not general.
George Washington wrote:"To me this is so demonstrable, that not a particle of doubt
could dwell on my mind relative thereto, if our citizens would
advocate their own cause, instead of that of any other nation under
the sun; that is, if, instead of being Frenchmen or Englishmen in
politics they would be Americans, indignant at every attempt of either
or any other powers to establish an influence in our councils or
presume to sow the seeds of discord or disunion among us."
George Washington, granting me victory over all those Confederates who hold him a hero wrote:There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice.

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment, and

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community.

These are the Pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country.

On the three first Articles I will make a few observations, leaving the last to the good sense and serious consideration of those immediately concerned.

Under the first head, altho' it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress, or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives, they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation, and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature, or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.
George Washington, Farewell Address wrote:"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced...[the federal government] has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty...the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
George Washington wrote:It now rests with [Congress] make this country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into anarchy and confusion; for certain I am, that unless adequate powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptible....We are known by no other character among nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by foreign powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts...or Glouster County in Virginia...yet these counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the laws of the state in [which] they are, as an individual state can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound. [When counties] come in contact with the general interests of the state, when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their voices should be heard no more; so it should be with individual states when compared to the Union....I think the blood and treasure which has been spent [in building the nation] has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the sovereign power.
George Washington wrote:"[W]hen the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion, is that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them."
George Washington wrote:"[T]he United States came into existence as a nation, and if their citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their is in their choice, and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptible and miserable as a nation...[it would be an] ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers of the Union, annihilating the cement of the confederation, and exposing us to become the sport of European politics, which may play one state against another to prevent their growing importance, and to serve their own interested purposes."
George Washington wrote:"It is only in our united character...that our independence is acknowledged, that our power can be regarded, and our credit supported among foreign nations."
That to impress these things it might, among other things be observed, that we are all the Children of the same country; a Country great and rich in itself; capable, and promising to be, as prosperous and as happy as any the Annals of history have ever brought to our view. That our interest, however, deversified in local and smaller matters, is the same in all the great and essential concerns of the Nation. That the extent of our Country, the diversity of our climate and soil, and the various productions of the States consequent to both, are such as to make one part not only convenient, but perhaps indispensably necessary to the other part; and may render the whole (at no distant period) one of the most independant in the world. That the established government being the work of our own hands, with the seeds of amendment engrafted in the Constitution, may by wisdom, good dispositions, and mutual allowances; aided by experience, bring it as near to perfection as any human institution ever aproximated; and therefore, the only strife among us ought to be, who should be foremost in facilitating and finally accomplishing such great and desirable objects; by giving every possible support, and cement to the Union.
George Washington wrote:Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations."
Last Will and Testament of George Washington wrote:I, George Washington of Mount Vernon, a citizen of the United States and lately President of the same, do make, ordain and declare this instrument, which is written with my own hand and every page thereof subscribed with my name, to be my last Will and Testament, revoking all others.
George Washington wrote:"I clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union by consolidating it in a common bond of principle."
George Washington, [url=]letter[/url] to Rev. William Gordon wrote:It now rests with the Confederated Powers, by the line of conduct they mean to adopt, to make this Country great, happy, and respectable; or to sink it into littleness; worse perhaps, into Anarchy and Confusion; for certain I am, that unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union that we shall soon moulder into dust and become contemptable in the Eyes of Europe, if we are not made the sport of their Politicks; to suppose that the general concern of this Country can be directed by thirteen heads, or one head without competent powers, is a solecism, the bad effects of which every Man who has had the practical knowledge to judge from, that I have, is fully convinced of; tho' none perhaps has felt them in so forcible, and distressing a degree. The People at large, and at a distance from the theatre of Action, who only know that the Machine was kept in motion, and that they are at last arrived at the first object of their Wishes are satisfied with the event, without investigating the causes of the slow progress to it, or of the Expences which have accrued and which they now seem unwilling to pay; great part of which has arisen from that want of energy in the Federal Constitution which I am complaining of, and which I wish to see given to it by a Convention of the People, instead of hearing it remarked that as we have worked through an arduous Contest with the Powers Congress already have (but which, by the by, have been gradually diminishing) why should they be invested with more?

To say nothing of the invisible workings of Providence, which has conducted us through difficulties where no human foresight could point the way; it will appear evident to a close Examiner, that there has been a concatenation of causes to produce this Event; which in all probability at no time, or under any Circumstances, will combine again. We deceive ourselves therefore by this mode of reasoning, and what would be much worse, we may bring ruin upon ourselves by attempting to carry it into practice.

We are known by no other character among Nations than as the United States; Massachusetts or Virginia is no better defined, nor any more thought of by Foreign Powers than the County of Worcester in Massachusetts is by Virginia, or Glouster County in Virginia is by Massachusetts (respectable as they are); and yet these Counties, with as much propriety might oppose themselves to the Laws of the State in wch. they are, as an Individual State can oppose itself to the Federal Government, by which it is, or ought to be bound. Each of these Counties has, no doubt, its local polity and Interests. these should be attended to, and brought before their respective legislatures with all the force their importance merits; but when they come in contact with the general Interest of the State; when superior considerations preponderate in favor of the whole, their Voices should be heard no more; so should it be with individual States when compared to the Union. Otherwise I think it may properly be asked for what purpose do we farcically pretend to be United? Why do Congress spend Months together in deliberating upon, debating, and digesting plans, which are made as palatable, and as wholesome to the Constitution of this Country as the nature of things will admit of, when some States will pay no attention to them, and others regard them but partially; by which means all those evils which proceed from delay, are felt by the whole; while the compliant States are not only suffering by these neglects, but in many instances are injured most capitally by their own exertions; which are wasted for want of the United effort. A hundd. thousand men coming one after another cannot move a Ton weight; but the united strength of 50 would transport it with ease. so has it been with great part of the expence which has been incurred this War. In a Word, I think the blood and treasure which has been spent in it has been lavished to little purpose, unless we can be better Cemented; and that is not to be effected while so little attention is paid to the recommendations of the Sovereign Power.

To me it would seem not more absurd, to hear a traveller, who was setting out on a long journey, declare he would take no Money in his pocket to defray the Expences of it but rather depend upon chance and charity lest he should misapply it, than are the expressions of so much fear of the powers and means of Congress. For Heavens sake who are Congress? are they not the Creatures of the People, amenable to them for their Conduct, and dependant from day to day on their breath? Where then can be the danger of giving them such Powers as are adequate to the great ends of Government, and to all the general purposes of the Confederation (I repeat the word genl, because I am no advocate for their having to do with the particular policy of any State, further than it concerns the Union at large). What may be the consequences if they have not these Powers I am at no loss to guess; and deprecate the worst; for sure I am, we shall, in a little time, become as contemptable in the great Scale of Politicks as we now have it in our power to be respectable; and that, when the band of Union gets once broken, every thing ruinous to our future prospects is to be apprehended; the best that can come of it, in my humble opinion is, that we shall sink into obscurity, unless our Civil broils should keep us in remembrance and fill the page of history with the direful consequences of them.
Abraham Lincoln wrote:Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union."
Abraham Lincoln wrote:If all the States, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one:" it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We, the People."
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2011-02-11 08:06am

Confederate records surrounding military events leading up to Fort Sumter, as cited by The_Patriot:
Part I

Initial Events

The Confederate government was formed by seven organized States, which, having seceded from the United States by separate action, and thus become each an independent State, proceeded formally, in a congress of delegates, to adopt a constitution for their confederation, under which they proposed to govern themselves. But, previous to this action, each State assumed for itself the sovereign rights and obligations of independent government. All land within any State's boundaries became its own eminent domain; all the population became subject to its jurisdiction; its laws were supreme and its flag was the symbol of sovereignty. Each State thus became a government which must organize its armies and navies for the defense of its people, as well as enact laws to meet their civic needs.
In compliance with this right and duty South Carolina, the first to secede, began to organize its small army and to seek by treaty the peaceable acquisition of certain forts and arsenals held by the military force of the United States. The other States, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas, pursued a similar course, or, despairing of obtaining the consent of the United States, entered into the possession of the forts, arsenals and other government property within their boundaries, with a show of force sometimes, but happily at first without conflict of arms or shedding of blood.

South Carolina declared its independence on the 20th of December, 1860, by a convention of its people, which at the same time authorized the enforcement of its laws by civil process and the organization of a military force for protection against foreign invasion. No military movement, however, occurred in the beginning of this new political order, that indicated hostility to any State or country. But, six days after South Carolina seceded, one unfortunate act of a United States officer inaugurated "the state of war." Maj. Robert Anderson, of the United States army, commanding in the harbor of Charleston and occupying Fort Moultrie, spiked the guns of that fort, destroyed the carriages of the 32-pounders, removed or destroyed the ammunition, and moved his supplies and his garrison abruptly and secretly to join the garrison of Fort Sumter. This very decided hostile movement, by which the commanding officer concentrated his forces at the stronger fort, was unquestionably, in technical definition at least, an act of war. Major Anderson meant it to be so, since he stated as his reason for thus acting that he feared attack, and "if attacked the garrison would never have surrendered without a fight." The object of the movement was to strengthen his position and prepare to meet his enemy at better advantage. The abandoned fort was therefore promptly occupied by South Carolina troops, and the State also seized such other property as could be taken without bloodshed.

Nearly coincident with this movement of Major Anderson occurred the purchase and equipping of vessels in the New York harbor to carry reinforcements of supplies and troops to Fort Sumter. Gen. Winfield Scott, the commander-in-chief of the United States army, who had constantly insisted on coercive military measures, again urged President Buchanan, on the 30th of December, to send 250 recruits from New York harbor, with extra muskets or rifles, ammunition and subsistence stores to reinforce the fort which Major Anderson now held. The President promptly ordered the reinforcements. The secretaries of war and the navy were immediately instructed, the appropriate orders to army and navy officers were issued, and on the 31st day of December, 1860, the measures for an armed reinforcement of Fort Sumter were fully adopted and carried into immediate operation. A few days' delay unexpectedly ensued, but as quickly as possible, January 5, 1861, the steamer Star of the West left New York for Charleston on a warlike mission with 250 troops and six months' provisions, and was followed two days later by the warship Brooklyn, Captain Farragut commanding.

The expedition of the Star of the West failed, notwithstanding its well-devised plans, nearly as the circumstances of the failure are related by Lieutenant Woods, Ninth United States infantry, commanding the recruits on board. His report shows that on arrival near his destination he steamed up the main channel in Charleston harbor, and was within 1 miles of Fort Sumter, with his troops hidden from view, when his vessel was fired upon from Morris island. The Star of the West kept on under the fire of the South Carolina battery, but finding it impossible to take the supplies and his command of infantry into Port Sumter, Lieutenant Woods reluctantly ordered the ship about, and made his way out of the harbor. Captain McGowan, who commanded the Star of the West, was specially mentioned by Lieutenant Woods for his efforts "to put the troops in Fort Sumter." This attempt at armed reinforcement occurred on the 9th of January, and is mentioned in connection with the strategy of Major Anderson as another event occurring thus early in the "inauguration of war." Its special significance appears in the light of the principle already agreed on between the State of South Carolina and Buchanan's administration, that reinforcement of Fort Sumter in this manner had at least a hostile bearing, equivalent, as South Carolina understood it, to an act of war.

The United States government at this date actively reinforced Forts Pickens, Taylor, Key West and Jefferson, and ordered the withdrawal of several war vessels from foreign stations for the purpose of increasing the home squadron, to be distributed along the Southern coasts. The United States naval force available for aggression was inefficient, but such as could be employed were actively threatening the Southern ports. The activity of the Buchanan administration, notwithstanding the vacillation of the President, was sufficient to withhold from the Southern seceded States many valuable positions, among which may be named the forts on the coasts of Florida, as well as Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. The Confederate government when formed in February, at Montgomery, found its territory occupied with hostile forces at important points on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and the future action of the States on its northern and western borders still a painful uncertainty. The conditions at that time were already warlike.
Part III

Actual Hostilities Begin.

Abraham Lincoln, inaugurated President of the United States on March 4th, soon adopted the war policy which had been initiated by the concentration of troops by Major Anderson at Fort Sumter in December, 1860, the ordering of the Star of the West to Charleston harbor in January, 1861, with troops, arms and supplies, and the summons of several ships of the distant squadrons to steam homeward. The policy most practicable for immediate hostilities as became apparent to President Lincoln's advisers, was an invasion of the Confederacy by way of the ocean and the gulf. The first objective point, Charleston; the first State to be overthrown and brought to terms, South Carolina; the first movement, reinforcement of Fort Sumter, peaceably if permitted, otherwise by force. This plan was maturely considered during March, while the Confederate leaders were held in suspense with the hope of peace. which caused them to wait for the action of the Federal administration. At length, on the 8th of April, South Carolina was officially informed that "an attempt would be made to supply Fort Sumter, peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must." Eight armed vessels with soldiers aboard had been sent to sustain the notification, and moved so quickly on this expedition that only an unexpected storm at sea caused delay enough for the Confederate authorities to successfully meet the issue.

The Confederate States objected to this movement of the Federal authorities, because the reinforcement was invasion by the use of physical force; because it asserted the claim of the United States to sovereignty over South Carolina, which was in dispute; and because the supply of the garrison in Fort Sumter with necessary rations was not the object nor the end of the expedition. The purpose was to secure Fort Sumter, to close the port with the warships, to reduce Charleston by bombardment if necessary, to land troops from transports, and thus crush the rebellion where it was supposed to have begun by overthrowing South Carolina. This admirable scheme was frustrated by the necessary, prompt and successful attack on Fort Sumter after General Beauregard had exchanged the usual formalities with Major Anderson. At 4:30 o'clock on the morning of April 12th, the Confederates opened fire on the fort, which was soon returned. The bombardment which followed for thirty-three hours at last made the fort untenable, and Anderson on the 14th surrendered his stronghold to the Confederacy, and on the 15th evacuated the position with honors.

It has been observed that at the time of the sailing of the United States fleet toward Charleston under orders to sustain Fort Sumter, neither of the two countries had armies and fleets in readiness for the impending war. The Confederate government, having had only two months of political existence, was yet scarcely in communication with the seven States which had given it the right to a place among nations. Its armies were a few thousand troops hastily gathered together from the seceded States, and its navy had only a name with an abundance of splendid officers yearning for ships. Seven great States of the South, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland, still remained in the Federal union. On the Northern side the regular army had not been made available and the volunteers were yet chiefly with their States. But the battle over the control of Charleston harbor, although fought by artillery and without the loss of life, was followed by immediate and great preparations for the portentous American conflict.

On the day after the plan of reinforcement failed, President Lincoln issued his proclamation calling for 75,000 troops, to be immediately armed and equipped for active service. President Davis construed this to be a declaration of war, and called for 100,000 troops to support the independence of the South. The governors of six of the seven States which had not seceded refused to obey the requisitions upon them for troops, because the proclamation established coercion as the policy of the administration, and they would not participate in the subjugation of the Southern States. The governor of Maryland merely asked for delay. The "war governors" of the Northern States responded so earnestly to the first call of President Lincoln that thousands of men who had been held in preparation for this event began to pour toward Washington.

Quickly following the first proclamation, President Lincoln on the 19th of April proclaimed the first blockade of Southern ports from South Carolina to Texas, which was afterward extended, April 27th, to the ports of North Carolina and Virginia. Another proclamation, May 4th, called for about 40,000 volunteers for three years, and ordered an increase of the regular army by 22,000 soldiers, and of the navy by 18,000 seamen. Orders were also issued to seize all dispatches in telegraph offices; to authorize martial law with suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in certain places; to prohibit sales of munitions of war to Southern States--these and other minor measures showing that actual war was at hand. Under this policy Washington city became a military camp, and the frowning visage of war was on all the country.

The unmistakable import of all these coercive measures caused the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas; at the same time involving Missouri and Kentucky in civil war, and causing the first blood of the great struggle to flow April 19th on the soil of Maryland. Virginia seceding took possession of Harper's Ferry and the Gosport navy yard, thus acquiring a large amount of machinery and munitions, but found Fortress Monroe so well garrisoned as to make its seizure impossible. Virginia troops were rapidly organized by Maj. Gen. R. E. Lee, and with such equipments as could be secured were posted at Harper's Perry, Norfolk and other points. The States seceding with her also occupied all forts and arsenals they could seize, and began in earnest the organization of military commands for the use of the Confederacy.

North Carolina was as loath as Virginia to leave the Union, conservatively avoiding all acts that would place the State in antagonism to the general government. Certain forts were seized by a premature popular attack; but the governor caused them to be restored at once. Nothing warlike occurred until the attempt was made by the reinforcement plan to put South Carolina in peril, and the demand on the State to furnish its quota of troops to put down the so-called rebellion. The governor declined to obey the requisition and took the forts of the State, the arsenal at Fayetteville and the mint at Charlotte into his possession. The State seceded May 20th, and within a month raised a force of over 20,000 volunteers.

The great middle State of Tennessee was so indispensable to the Confederacy that its tardy action produced alarm. The governor urged immediate secession after the fight over Sumter and President Lincoln's call on Tennessee for troops, but the State was hampered by the objection to secession which controlled almost the entire eastern section. Prominent leaders of different parties joined the governor, and at length, in May, the State agreed to enter into an alliance or league with the Confederate government, placing under Confederate control the entire military force, and the question of secession was submitted to the people. This temporary action resulted in the legal secession of this invaluable State and its incorporation with the body of the Confederacy. The governor being authorized by the legislature rapidly organized a large provisional army. Batteries were established on the Mississippi river, several thousand troops were concentrated in west Tennessee, and others were posted in east Tennessee and in camps at other places. Within two months after the passage of the act of May 6th, the energetic governor had put 30,000 troops in the field. The State went at a bound to the front line of its associates.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2011-02-11 08:15am

Alexander H. Stephens, diary entry in 1866 wrote:As for my Savanna speech, about which so much has been said and in regrd to which I am represented as setting forth "slavery" as the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy, it is proper for me to state that that speech was extemporaneous, the reporter's notes, which were very imperfect, were hastily corrected by me; and were published without further revision and with several glaring errors. The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)
I admitted that the fathers, both of the North and the South, who framed the old Constitution, while recognizing existing slavery and guarnateeing its continuance under the Constitution so long as the States should severally see fit to tolerate it in their respective limits, were perhaps all opposed to the principle. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, all looked for its early extinction throughout the United States. But on the subject of slavery - so called - (which was with us, or should be, nothing but the proper subordination of the inferior African race to the superior white) great and radical changes had taken place in the realm of thought; many eminent latter-day statesmen, philosophers, and philanthropists held different views from the fathers.

The patriotism of the fathers was not questioned, nor their ability and wisdom, but it devolved on the public men and statesmen of each generation to grapple with and solve the problems of their own times.

The relation of the black to the white race, or the proper status of the coloured population amongst us, was a question now of vastly more importance than when the old Constitution was formed. The order of subordination was nature's great law; philosophy taught that order as the noraml condition of the African amongst European races. Upon this recognized principle of a proper subordination, let it be called slavery or what not, our State institutions were formed and rested. The new Confederation was entered into with this distinct understanding. This principle of the subordination of the inferior to the superior was the "corner-stone" on which it was formed. I used this metaphor merely to illustrate the firm convictions of the framers of the new Constitution that this relation of the black to the white race, which existed in 1787, was not wrong in itself, either morally or politically; that it was in conformity to nature and best for both races. I alluded not to the principles of the new Government on this subject, but to public sentiment in regard to these principles. The status of the African race in the new Constitution was left just where it was in the old; I affirmed and meant to affirm nothing else in this Savannah speech.

My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished. It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation. The same I may say of things connected with the best institutions in the best communities in which my lot has been cast. Great improvements were, however, going on in the condition of blacks in the South. Their general physical condition not only as to necessaries but as to comforts was better in my own neighbourhood in 1860, than was that of the whites when I can first recollect, say 1820. Much greater would have been made, I verily believe, but for outside agitation. I have but small doubt that education would have been allowed long ago in Georgia, except for outside pressure which stopped internal reform.
Harper's Weekly, Saturday, April 27, 1861 edition; account of the attack on Fort Sumter.

Harper's Weekly, January 19, 1861 edition; account of the shelling of the Star of the West.

Harper's Weekly, January 26, 1861 edition; first shot of the Civil War

Harper's Weekly, January 26, 1861 edition; interview with the Star's captain.

The Case Against Secession.

Daniel Webster on nullification. Note to self: Look into this further. [New note to self: Obey previous note to self. ~ Ed.]
We cannot so highly commend his votes in 1832 as his speeches. General Jackson's mode of dealing with nullification seems to us the model for every government to follow which has to deal with discontented subjects:--1. To take care that the laws are obeyed; 2. To remove the real grounds of discontent. This was General Jackson's plan. This, also, was the aim of Mr. Clay's compromise. Mr. Webster objected to both, on the ground that nullification was rebellion, and that no legislation respecting the pretext for rebellion should be entertained until the rebellion was quelled. Thus he came out of the battle, dear to the thinking people of the country, but estranged from the three political powers,--Henry Clay and his friends, General Jackson and his friends, Calhoun and his friends; and though he soon lapsed again under the leadership of Mr. Clay, there was never again a cordial union between him and any interior circle of politicians who could have gratified his ambition. Deceived by the thunders of applause which greeted him wherever he went, and the intense adulation of his own immediate circle, he thought that he too could be an independent power in politics. Two wild vagaries seemed to have haunted him ever after: first, that a man could merit the Presidency; secondly, that a man could get the Presidency by meriting it.
James Madison, Federalist Paper XLVI wrote:Resuming the subject of the last paper, I proceed to enquire whether the Foederal Government or the State Governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people.... The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrouled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone
James Madison wrote:The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more that an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired against their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution ∧ laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!
James Madison wrote:An inference from the doctrine that a single State has the right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for.
*Sigh* How he [a previous debate opponent of mine] managed to think this letter acknowledged the right of secession and nullification I do not know, but I suppose I'd best dissect it. :roll:
James Madison, [url=]Letter to William Rives[/url] wrote:To William Cabell Rives

Montpr, March 12, 1833

Dear Sir,

I have recd your very kind letter of the 6th, from Washington, and by the same mail a copy of your late Speech in the Senate, for which I tender my thanks. I have found as I expected, that it takes a very able and enlightening view of its subject. I wish it may have the effect of reclaiming to the doctrine & language held by all from the birth of the Constitution, & till very lately by themselves, those who now Contend that the States have never parted with an Atom of their sovereignty, and consequently that the Constitutional band which holds them together, is a mere league or partnership, without any of the characteristics of sovereignty or nationality.

It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine, and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates.
Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation — a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself, not in precedents, because there are none, not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before them.

What can be more preposterous than to say that the States as united, are in no respect or degree, a Nation, which implies sovereignty, altho' acknowledged to be such by all other Nations & Sovereigns, and maintaining with them, all the in ternational relations, of war & peace, treaties, commerce, &c, and, on the other hand and at the same time, to say that the States separately are compleatly nations & sovereigns, although they can separately neither speak nor harken to any other nation, nor maintain with it any of the international relations whatever and would be disowned as Nations if presenting themselves in that character.

The milliners it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality according to the extent of the grant are effectually transferred by it, and a dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution & laws of the several States, supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.

The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification, but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdraw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a State, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst their brethren of other States, not to expose them, to the danger of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned, that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtruded it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them?

In explaining the proceedings of Virga in 98-99, the state of things at that time was the more properly appealed to, as it has been too much overlooked. The doctrines combated are always a key to the arguments employed. It is but too common to read the expressions of a remote period thro' the modern meaning of them, & to omit guards agst misconstruction not anticipated. A few words with a prophetic gift, might have prevented much error in the glosses on those proceedings. The remark is equally applicable to the Constitution itself.

Having thrown these thoughts on paper in the midst of interruptions added to other dangers of inaccuracy, I will ask the favor of you to return the letter after perusal. I have latterly taken this liberty with more than one of my corresponding friends. And every lapse of very short periods becomes now a fresh apology for it.

Neither Mrs. M. nor myself have forgotten the promised visit which included Mrs. Rives, and we flatter ourselves the fulfilment of it, will not be very distant. Meanwhile we tender to you both our joint & affecte. salutations.

P. Script. I inclose a little pamphlet rec. a few days ago, which so well repaid my perusal, that I submit it to yours, to be returned only at your leisure. It is handsomely written, and its matter well chosen & interesting. A like task as well executed in every State wd. be of historical value; the more so as the examples might both prompt & guide researches, not as yet too late but rapidly becoming so.
James Madison, [url=]Federalist Paper XIV[/url] wrote:Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many chords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no longer be fellow citizens of one great respectable and flourishing empire. Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended for your adoption is a novelty in the political world; that it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to accomplish. No my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys; the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate their union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe me the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rending us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness.
James Madison wrote:The compound Govt of the U. S. is without a model, and to be explained by itself, not by similitudes or analogies. The terms Union, Federal, National not to be applied to it without the qualifications peculiar to the system. The English Govt is in a great measure sui generis, and the terms Monarchy used by those who look at the executive head only, and Commonwealth, by those looking at the representative member chiefly, are inapplicable in a strict sense.

A fundamental error lies in supposing the State Governments to be the parties to the Constitutional compact from which the Govt. of the U. S. results.

It is a like error that makes the General Govt and the State governments the parties to the compact, as stated in the 4th. letter of "Algernon Sidney," [Judge Roane]. They may be parties in a judicial controversy, but are not so in relation to the original constitutional compact.

In No. XI of "Retrospects," [by Govr. Giles], in the Richmond Enquirer of Sept. 8, 1829, Mr. Jefferson is misconstrued, or rather mistated, as making the State Govts. & the Govt of the U. S. foreign to each other; the evident meaning, or rather the express language of Mr. J, being "the States are foreign to each other, in the portions of sovereignty not granted, as they were in the entire sovereignty before the grant," and not that the State Govts. and the Govt. of the U. S. are foreign to each other. As the State Govts. participate in appointing the Functionaries of the Genl. Govt. it can no more be said that they are altogether foreign to each other, than that the people of a State & its Govt. are foreign.

The real parties to the constl. compact of the U. S. are the States--that is, the people thereof respectively in their sovereign character, and they alone, so declared in the Resolutions of 98, and so explained in the Report of 99. In these Resolutions as originally proposed, the word alone, wch. guarded agst. error on this point, was struck out, [see printed debates of 98] and led to misconceptions & misreasonings concerning the true character of the pol: system, and to the idea that it was a compact between the Govts. of the States and the Govt. of the U. S. an idea promoted by the familiar one applied to Govts. independent of the people, particularly the British, of [?] a compact between the monarch & his subjects, pledging protection on one side & allegiance on the other.

The plain fact of the case is that the Constitution of the U. S. was created by the people composing the respective States, who alone had the right; that they organized the Govt. into Legis. Ex. & Judicy. departs. delegating thereto certain portions of power to be exercised over the whole, and reserving the other portions to themselves respectively. As these distinct portions of power were to be exercised by the General Govt. & by the State Govts; by each within limited spheres; and as of course controversies concerning the boundaries of their power wd. happen, it was provided that they should be decided by the Supreme Court of the U. S. so constituted as to be as impartial as it could be made by the mode of appointment & responsibility for the Judges.
James Madison, letter to Nicholas Trist. Excerpts follow.
Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions. The Federal Govt. has like the State govts. its Legislative, its Executive & its Judiciary Departments. It has, like them, acknowledged cases in which the powers of these departments are to operate. And the operation is to be directly on persons & things in the one Govt. as in the others. If in some cases, the jurisdiction is concurrent as it is in others exclusive, this is one of the features constituting the peculiarity of the system.

In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts. That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious and as essential, as the task itself was difficult and delicate.

That the final decision of such controversies, if left to each of the 13 now 24 members of the Union, must produce a different Constitution & different laws in the States was certain; and that such differences must be destructive of the common Govt. & of the Union itself, was equally certain. The decision of questions between the common agents of the whole & of the parts, could only proceed from the whole, that is from a collective not a separate authority of the parts.

The question then presenting itself could only relate to the least objectionable mode of providing for such occurrences, under the collective authority.
Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt.

The original compact is the one implied or presumed, but nowhere reduced to writing, by which a people agree to form one society. The next is a compact, here for the first time reduced to writing, by which the people in their social state agree to a Govt. over them. These two compacts may be considered as blended in the Constitution of the U. S., which recognises a union or society of States, and makes it the basis of the Govt. formed by the parties to it.

It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact.

Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations. It follows at the same time that, in the event of such a violation, the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke, and can only be restrained from the attempt by a want of physical strength for the purpose. The case of individuals expatriating themselves, that is leaving their country in its territorial as well as its social & political sense, may well be deemed a reasonable privilege, or rather as a right impliedly reserved. And even in this case equitable conditions have been annexed to the right which qualify the exercise of it.

Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.
What would be the condition of the States attached to the Union & its Govt. and regarding both as essential to their well-being, if a State placed in the midst of them were to renounce its Federal obligations, and erect itself into an independent and alien nation? Could the States N. & S. of Virginia, Pennsyla. or N. York, or of some other States however small, remain associated and enjoy their present happiness, if geographically politically and practically thrown apart by such a breach in the chain which unites their interests and binds them together as neighbours & fellow citizens. It could not be. The innovation would be fatal to the Federal Governt. fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity; and presents a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder.

Without identifying the case of the U. S. with that of individual States, there is at least an instructive analogy between them. What would be the condition of the State of N. Y. of Massts. or of Pena. for example, if portions containing their great commercial cities, invoking original rights as paramount to social & constitutional compacts, should erect themselves into distinct & absolute sovereignties? In so doing they would do no more, unless justified by an intolerable oppression, than would be done by an individual State as a portion of the Union, in separating itself, without a like cause, from the other portions. Nor would greater evils be inflicted by such a mutilation of a State of some of its parts, than might be felt by some of the States from a separation of its neighbours into absolute and alien sovereignties.

Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it.
I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself. But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the "telum imbelle" which alone I could wield. The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands. A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth.
End excerpts from the letter to Trist.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2011-02-11 08:26am document repository
Alexander Stephens being strangely prophetic... wrote:This step (of secession) once taken, can never be recalled; and all the baleful and withering consequences that must follow, will rest on the convention for all coming time. When we and our posterity shall see our lovely South desolated by the demon of war, which this act of yours will inevitably invite and call forth: when our green fields of waving harvest shall be trodden down by the murderous soldiery and fiery car of war sweeping over our land; our temples of justice laid in ashes; all the horrors and desolations of war upon us; who but this convention will be held responsible for it? and who but him who shall have given his vote for this unwise and ill-timed measure, as I honestly think and believe, shall be held to strict account for this suicidal act by the present generation, and probably cursed and execrated by posterity for all coming time, for the wide and desolating ruin that will inevitably follow this act you now propose to perpetrate? Pause, I entreat you, and consider for a moment what reasons you can give that will even satisfy yourselves in calmer moments - what reasons you can give to your fellow-sufferers in the calamity that it will bring upon us. What reasons can you give to the nations of the earth to justify it? They will be the calm and deliberate judges in the case; and what cause or one overt act can you name or point, on which to rest the plea of justification? What right has the North assailed? What interest of the South has been invaded? What justice has been denied? and what claim founded in justice and right has been withheld? Can either of you to-day name one governmental act of wrong, deliberately and purposely done by the government of Washington, of which the South has a right to complain? I challenge the answer.

While, on the other hand, let me show the facts (and believe me, gentlemen, I am not here the advocate of the North; but I am here the friend, the firm friend, and lover of the South and her institutions, and for this reason I speak thus plainly and faithfully for yours, mine, and every other man's interest, the words of truth and soberness), of which I wish you to judge, and I will only state facts which are clear and undeniable, and which now stand as records authentic in the history of our country. When we of the South demanded the slave-trade, or the importation of Africans for the cultivation of our lands, did they not yield the right for twenty years? When we asked a three-fifths representation in Congress for our slaves, was it not granted? When we asked and demanded the return of any fugitive from justice, or the recovery of those persons owing labor or allegiance, was it not incorporated in the Constitution, and again ratified and strengthened by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850? But do you reply that in many instances they have violated this compact, and have not been faithful to their engagements? As individual and local communities, they may have done so; but not by the sanction of Government; for that has always been true to Southern interests. Again, gentlemen, look at another act: when we have asked that more territory should be added, that we might spread the institution of slavery, have they not yielded to our demands in giving us Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, out of which four States have been carved, and ample territory for four more to be added in due time, if you by this unwise and impolitic act do not destroy this hope, and, perhaps, by it lose all, and have your last slave wrenched from you by stern military rule, as South America and Mexico were; or by the vindictive decree of a universal emancipation, which may reasonably be expected to follow?

Leaving out of view, for the present, the countless millions of dollars you must expend in a war with the North; with tens of thousands of your sons and brothers slain in battle, and offered up as sacrifices upon the altar of your ambition - and for what, we ask again? Is it for the overthrow of the American Government, established by our common ancestry, cemented and built up by their sweat and blood, and founded on the broad principles of Right, Justice, and Humanity? And, as such, I must declare here, as I have often done before, and which has been repeated by the greatest and wisest of statemen and patriots in this and other lands, that it is the best and freest Government - the most equal in its rights, the most just in its decisions, the most lenient in its measures, and the most aspiring it its principles to elevate the race of men, that the sun of heaven ever shone upon. Now, for you to attempt to overthrow such a Government as this, under which we have lived for more than three-quarters of a century - in which we have gained our wealth, our standing as a nation, our domestic safety while the elements of peril are around us, with peace and tranquility accompanied with unbounded prosperity and rights unassailed - is the height of madness, folly, and wickedness, to which I can neither lend my sanction nor my vote.
Ironic that this man should become Vice President of the Confederate States...
South Carolinian law: The ceding of Fort Sumter to the federal government wrote:Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.
Texas v. White, SCOTUS decision denying the right of secession.

Southern Unionists, 1850-51

General Beauregard on Lincoln's "abolition hosts," among other things.

General Sherman's field orders, which definitely do not outline total war against the South.

Comparison chart of the United States and Confederate Constitutions.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by D.Turtle » 2011-02-11 09:52am

This might be interesting for you.

From here:
I researched and wrote an article on the "90% of southerners never owned slave" position a few years ago. I was surprised by what I learned.

It's true that approximately 90% of white southerners didn't owned slaves, but that is a misleading statistic for at least three reasons.

First, while only 10% of white southerners owned slaves, another 40% to 60% of white southerners were either married to, or the children of, that 10%. I researched two Confederate infantry companies in this regard - one drew men primarily from a major town in a slave-owning area; the second came from a remote mountain valley were there were relatively few slaves. In both instances, the percentage of the soldiers who owned slaves in those two companies was nominal (10% or less). However, the percentage of their fathers who owned slaves was much, much higher - about 25% for the mountain company, and nearly 50% for the town men. And those statistics were on the low side - if I couldn't find proof postive that a soldier owned a slave or was the son of a slave owning father, I assumed he he wasn't. If I had been able to track down more of those who I couldn't confirm, I got a strong feeling that the percentages would actually be much higher - probably more like 50% to 75% of Confederate soldiers had a direct interest in the perpetuation of slavery, either because they owned a slave, their fathers did, or because they were involved in a directly related occupation (one soldier, for instance, was the son of an overseer on a large plantation).

2. Nearly all southerners had a vested interest in the perpetuation of slavery. The economy was highly dependent upon slavery, so a threat to it was a threat to the welfare of the southern people - even those who weren't members of slave-owning families. And that threat had really rattled southerners. Population growth in the north was threatening to unbalance political power. If more free states were admitted to the Union than slave, the South would have a minority in the United States Senate, the only political body that stood between it and political impotence (the North already controlled the House of Representatives, had just taken the Presidency, and had the power to appoint anti-slavery justices to the Supreme Court. So the South was about to lose the political strength to protect itself from the North, and this scared most southerners to death.

3. While slave owners were only 10% of the white southern population, they dominated political office in the south. In other words, nearly all political power was excercised by slave owners. It should come as no surprise, then, that when a grave threat to political balance and the economy arose, southerners reacted with passion and ultimately violence.

I need to say that I am a southerner and proud of it. I love the South. I appreciate and honor the men who served their country. I recognize why they fought and the complexity of the issues that existed. I agree that a strong constitutional argument can be made that a member can withdraw from a union voluntarily created. I concur that state's rights is an important constitutional concept designed to limit the power (and abuses) of the central government. But while we southerners sincerely and with good reason raise a toast to state's rights, we must acknowledge that we were in the wrong when it came to human rights.
While the last part is questionable from what you've posted here, the statistics on the slave-owning part is very interesting.

Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Samuel » 2011-02-11 10:05am

Additionally, I read that slaves were sometimes rented out by their owners to provide labor to people who didn't have slaves and needed the extra hands (I can look up the source if you need it). That would also drive the percentage of those who benefited from slavery.

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2011-02-24 09:44am

Defending the Cause of Human Freedom, essay by Harry Jaffa. Details, among other things, prewar Slave Power demands for the use of unprecedentedly expanded federal power to guarantee slavery in the territories, contrary to the states' rights view.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2013-04-23 10:46pm

New additions:

Resolution of the legislature of South Carolina calling upon the free states to outlaw abolitionist societies, 1835. Illustrates complete disregard for both the rights of the free states and the constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties of the citizens of the United States.
The present condition of the slave question in the states of this confederacy, presents one of the most extraordinary spectacles which, your committee will venture to assert, has ever challenged the notice of the civilized world. We see sovereign states united by a common league, in about one-half of which states the insti­tution of slavery not only exists, but its legal existence is solemnly recognized and guaranteed by their compact of union. Yet in the face of this compact, and the clear and distinct admission that the non-slaveholding states have not the slightest right, either constitutionally or otherwise, to interfere with this institution, the most incendiary associations are tolerated or permitted to exist within their limits, the object and ends of which not only strike at the prosperity and happiness of eleven states in the confeder­acy, but at their very social existence.

Painful as it may be, it is impossible to disguise the fact, that this is a condition of things which cannot, in the long run, be permitted to exist. Every wise instinct of self-preservation forbids it. Let it be admitted, that the three millions of free white inhabitants in the slave-holding states are amply competent to hold in secure and pacific subjection the two millions of slaves, which, by the inscrutable dispensations of Providence, have been placed under our dominion. Let it be admitted, that, by reason of an efficient police and judicious internal legislation, we may render abortive the designs of the fanatic and incendiary within our own limits, and that the torrent of pamphlets and tracts which the abolition presses of the north are pouring forth with an inexhausti­ble copiousness, is arrested the moment it reaches our frontier. Are we to wait until our enemies have built up, by the grossest misrepresentations and falsehoods, a body of public opinion against us, which it would be almost impossible to resist, without separating ourselves from the social system of the rest of the civilized world? Or are we to sit down content, because from our own vigilance and courage the torch of the incendiary and the dagger of the midnight assassin may never be applied? This is impossible. No people can live in a state of perpetual excitement and apprehension, although real danger may be long de­ferred. Such a condition of the public mind is destructive of all social happiness, and consequently must prove essentially injuri­ous to the prosperity of a community that has the weakness to suffer under a perpetual panic. This would be true, if the causes of this excitement proceeded from the external hostility of a foreign nation. But how infinitely interesting and momentous the consideration becomes, when they flow from the acts and doings of citizens of states, with whom we are not only in amity, but to whom we are bound by the strongest bonds of common union, which was framed to promote the happiness, peace, security, and protection of all.

We have, therefore, a claim on the governments of the non-slaveholding states, not only moral and social, but of indispensible constitutional obligation, that this nuisance shall be abated. They not only owe it to us, but they owe it to themselves, to that union, at whose shrine they have so often offered up the highest pledges by which man can plight his temporal faith.

Your committee are aware, that it has been said, that no legis­lation can be adapted to arrest the proceedings of the abolition­ists by the non-slaveholding states, without violating the great principles of the liberty of the press. We consider that this objection rests on no just foundation. There is certainly some difference between the freedom of discussion, and the liberty to deluge a friendly and coterminous state with seditious and incen­diary tracts, pamphlets and pictorial representations, calculated to excite a portion of its population to revolt, rapine and bloodshed. We would fain believe, that the northern liberty of the press, would never be construed into a liberty, to lay the south in ashes. Under a Iaw honestly passed to meet this crime against society, and treason against the Union, the whole circumstances of the case, and the quo animo of the offender might be left to a jury to determine like any other criminal issue, and if we are to believe in the condition of public opinion, as recently exhibited in most of the non-slaveholding states, we are far from thinking that such legislation would be a mere dead letter.

South Carolina will not anticipate the crisis, which must be presented by a refusal on the part of the non-slaveholding states, to accord to us the protection of such legislation, or such other means, as they may select for the suppression of the evils of which we complain, for she will not doubt the good faith and amity of her sister states. She desires to live in peace and harmony in this Union. In the assertion of her rights and in preferring her claims to be secure in the enjoyment of her property, under the compact, she desires to act in entire concert with those states, whose interests are identical with her own. She is, however, prepared to do her duty to herself and posterity, under all and every possible conjuncture of circumstances.

In conclusion, your committee, desirous of making a matter of record, both of our rights, and the assertion of the just expecta­tion that they will be respected by those who are united with us in the bonds of a common union, beg leave to offer the following resolutions, for the adoption of both branches of the Legislature.

1. Resolved, That the formation of the abolition societies, and the acts and doings of certain fanatics, calling themselves aboli­tionists, in the non-slaveholding states of this confederacy, are in direct violation of the obligations of the compact of union, dis­social, and incendiary in the extreme.

2. Resolved, That no state having a just regard for her own peace and security can acquiesce in a state of things by which such conspiracies are engendered within the limits of a friendly state, united to her by the bonds of a common league of political association, without either surrendering or compromising her most essential rights.

3. Resolved, That the Legislature of South Carolina, having every confidence in the justice and friendship of the non-slave­holding states, announces to her co-states her confident expecta­tion, and she earnestly requests that the governments of these states will promptly and effectually suppress all those associations within their respective limits, purporting to be abolition societies, and that they will make it highly penal to print, publish and dis­tribute newspapers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial representations calculated and having an obvious tendency to excite the slaves of the southern states to insurrection and revolt.

4. Resolved, That, regarding the domestic slavery of the southern states as a subject exclusively within the control of each of the said states, we shall consider every interference, by any other state or the general government, as a direct and unlawful inter­ference, to be resisted at once, and under every possible circum­stance.

5. Resolved, In order that a salutary negative may be put on the mischievous, and unfounded assumption of some of the abolitionists—the non-slaveholding states are requested to disclaim by legislative declaration, all right, either on the part of themselves or the government of the United States, to interfere in any manner with domestic slavery, either in the states, or in the territories where it exists.

6. Resolved, That we should consider the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, as a violation of the rights of the citizens of that District, derived from the implied conditions on which that territory was ceded to the general government, and as an usurpation to be at once resisted as nothing more than the commencement of a scheme of much more extensive and flagrant injustice.

7. Resolved, That the legislature of South Carolina, regards with decided approbation, the measures of security adopted by the Post Office Department of the United States, in relation to the transmission of incendiary tracts. But if this highly essential and protective policy, be counteracted by congress, and the United States mail becomes a vehicle for the transmission of the mischievous documents, with which it was recently freighted, we, in this contingency, expect that the Chief Magistrate of our state, will forthwith call the legislature together, that timely measures may be taken to prevent its traversing our territory.

8. Resolved, That the governor be requested to transmit a copy of this report and resolutions to the executives of the several states, that they may be laid before their respective legislatures.

IN THE SENATE, 16th December, 1835

Resolved, That the Senate do agree, unanimously, to the report and resolutions
Ordered, They be sent to the house of representatives for concurrence.

By order of the senate,


Resolved, That the house do concur, unanimously, in the report and resolutions
Ordered, They be returned to the senate

By order of the house,

Address of a Commissioner for the state of Louisiana to the Texas secession convention, March 9, 1861. Illustrates slavery as a secession aim.
To the Hon. O.M. Roberts, President of the Convention of the People of Texas.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.

I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession, a resolution in regard to the Mississippi river and the ordinance to provide for the appointment of delegates to a convention to form a Southern Confederacy. These ordinances and the resolution were adopted at their respective dates by the people of Louisiana in convention assembled, after serious debate and calm reflection.

Being desirous of obtaining the concurrence of the people of Texas in what she has done, Louisiana invites you to a candid consideration of her acts in resuming the powers delegated to the government of the late United States, and in providing for the formation of a confederacy of "The States which have seceded and may secede." The archives of the Federal Government bear ample testimony to the loyalty of Louisiana to the American Union. Her conservatism has been proverbial in political circles. The character and pursuits of her people, her immense agricultural wealth, her large banking capital, her possession of the great commercial metropolis of the South, whose varied trade almost rivals that of the city of "ten thousand masts" present facts sufficient to make "assurance double sure" she did not take these grave steps for light or transient causes. She was impelled to this action to preserve her honor, her safety, her property and the free institutions so sacred to her people. She believed the federal agent had betrayed her trust, had become the facile instrument of a hostile people, and was usurping despotic powers. She considered that the present vacillating executive, on the 4th of March next, would be supplanted by a stalwart fanatic of the Northwest, whose energetic will, backed by the frenzied bigotry of unpatriotic masses, would cause him to *establish* the military despotism already inaugurated.

The people of Louisiana were unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities. Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. As her neighbor and sister State, she desires the hearty co-operation of Texas in the formation of a Southern Confederacy. She congratulates herself on the recent disposition evinced by your body to meet this wish, by the election of delegates to the Montgomery convention. Louisiana and Texas have the same language, laws and institutions. Between the citizens of each exists the most cordial social and commercial intercourse. The Red river and the Sabine form common highways for the transportation of their produce to the markets of the world. Texas affords to the commerce of Louisiana a large portion of her products, and in exchange the banks of New Orleans furnish Texas with her only paper circulating medium. Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity. Each of the States has an extended Gulf coast, and must look with equal solicitude to its protection now, and the acquisition of the entire control of the Gulf of Mexico in due time. No two States of this confederacy are so identified in interest, and whose destinies are so closely interwoven with each other. Nature, sympathy and unity of interest make them almost one. Recognizing these facts, but still confident in her own powers to maintain a separate existence, Louisiana regards with great concern the vote of the people of Texas on the ratification of the ordinance of secession, adopted by your honorable body on the 1st of the present month. She is confident a people who so nobly and gallantly achieved their liberties under such unparalleled difficulties will not falter in maintaining them now. The Mexican yoke could not have been more galling to "the army of heroes" of '36 than the Black republican rule would be to the survivors and sons of that army at the present day.

The people of Louisiana would consider it a most fatal blow to African slavery, if Texas either did not secede or having seceded should not join her destinies to theirs in a Southern Confederacy. If she remains in the union the abolitionists would continue their work of incendiarism and murder. Emigrant aid societies would arm with Sharp's rifles predatory bands to infest her northern borders. The Federal Government would mock at her calamity in accepting the recent bribes in the army bill and Pacific railroad bill, and with abolition treachery would leave her unprotected frontier to the murderous inroads of hostile savages. Experience justifies these expectations. A professedly friendly federal administration gave Texas no substantial protection against the Indians or abolitionists, and what must she look for from an administration avowedly inimical and supported by no vote within her borders. Promises won from the timid and faithless are poor hostages of good faith. As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. The isolation of any one of them from the others would make her a theatre for abolition emissaries from the North and from Europe. Her existence would be one of constant peril to herself and of imminent danger to other neighboring slave-holding communities. A decent respect for the opinions and interests of the Gulf States seems to indicate that Texas should co-operate with them. I am authorized to say to your honorable body that Louisiana does not expect any beneficial result from the peace conference now assembled at Washington. She is unwilling that her action should depend on the border States. Her interests are identical with Texas and the seceding States. With them she will at present co-operate, hoping and believing in his own good time God will awaken the people of the border States to the vanity of asking for, or depending upon, guarantees or compromises wrung from a people whose consciences are too sublimated to be bound by that sacred compact, the constitution of the late United States. That constitution the Southern States have never violated, and taking it as the basis of our new government we hope to form a slave-holding confederacy that will secure to us and our remotest posterity the great blessings its authors designed in the Federal Union. With the social balance wheel of slavery to regulate its machinery, we may fondly indulge the hope that our Southern government will be perpetual.

Geo. Williamson
Commissioner of the State of Louisiana
City of Austin Feby 11th 1861.
As is my custom, red highlights references to slavery, and orange highlights lies.

The Address of South Carolina to the Slaveholding States, December 25, 1860. Further illustration of the slavery motive, but with extensive discussion of the tariff issue, to illustrate that evidence for that view exists so as to not be caught off guard by it. Always remember that while there were other grievances, slavery was the root cause of the war, without which there would have been no secession.
The Address of the people of South Carolina, assembled in Convention, to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States

It is now seventy-three years since the Union between the United States was made by the Constitution of the United States. During this period their advance in wealth, prosperity, and power, has been with scarcely a parallel in the history of the world. The great object of their union was defense against external aggressions; which object is now attained, from their mere progress in power. Thirty-one millions of people, with a commerce and navigation which explore every sea, and of agricultural productions which are necessary to every civilized people, command the friendship of the world. But unfortunately, our internal peace has not grown with our external prosperity. Discontent and contention has moved in the bosom of the Confederacy, for the last thirty-five years. During this time, South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn Convention, to take into consideration, the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs, perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South. These wrongs, were submitted to by the people of the South, under the hope and expectation that they would be final. But such hope and expectation, have proved to be vain. Instead of producing forbearance, our acquiescence and outrage; and South Carolina, having again assembling her people in Convention, has this day dissolved her connection with the States, constituting the United States.

The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of Confederated Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is, in fact such a Government as Great Britain attempted to set over our Fathers; and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years’ struggle for independence.

The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self-government, -and self-taxation, the criterion of self-government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self-government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.

The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.

The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the Colonies, was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Our father, resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused the offer. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference. In neither case would the Colonies tax themselves. Hence, they refused to pay the taxes laid by the British parliament.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue--to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five shipyards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.

No man can for a moment believe, that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity, exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution -- --a limited free Government-- -- a Government limited to those matters only, which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement, would they obtain free Government, by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and acquiescence on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.

It is not at all surprising, such being the character of the Government of the United States, that it should assume to possess power over all the institutions of the country. The agitations on the subject of slavery, are the natural results of the consolidation of the Government. Responsibility, follows power; and if the people of the North, have the power by Congress--"to promote the general welfare of the United States," by any means they deem expedient--why should they not assail and overthrow the institution of slavery in the South? They are responsible for its continuance or existence, in proportion to their power. A majority in Congress, according to their interested and perverted views, is omnipotent. The inducements to act upon the subject of slavery, under such circumstances, were so imperious, as to amount almost to a moral necessity. To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union-in other words, on any constitutional subject-for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

The Constitution of the United States, was an experiment. The experiment consisted, in uniting under one Government, peoples living in different climates, and having different pursuits and institutions. It matters not, how carefully the limitations of such a government are laid down in the Constitution-its success must at least depend, upon the good faith of the parties to the constitutional compact, in enforcing them. It is not in the power of human language to exclude false inferences, constructions and perversions, in any Constitution; and when vast sectional interests are to be subserved, involving the appropriation of countless millions of money, it has not been the usual experience of mankind that words on parchments can arrest power. The Constitution of the United States, irrespective of the interposition of the States, rested on the assumption, that power would yield to faith,-that integrity would be stronger than interest; and that thus, the limitations of the Constitution would be observed. The experiment, has been fairly made. The Southern States, from the commencement of the Government, have striven to keep it, within the orbit prescribed by the Constitution. The experiment, has failed. The whole Constitution, by the constructions of the Northern people, has been absorbed by its preamble. In their reckless lust for power, they seem unable to comprehend that seeming paradox-that the more power is given to the General Government, the weaker it becomes. Its strength, consists in the limitation of its agency to objects of common interest to all sections. To extend the scope of its power over sectional or local interests, is to raise up against it, opposition and resistance. In all such matters, the General Government must necessarily be a despotism, because all sectional or local interests must ever be represented by a minority in the councils of the General Government-having no power to protect itself against the rule of the majority. The majority, constituted from those who do not represent these sectional or local interests, will control and govern them. A free people, cannot submit to such a Government. And the more it enlarges the sphere of its power, the greater must be the dissatisfaction it must produce, and the weaker it must become. On the contrary, the more it abstains from usurped powers, and the more faithfully it adheres to the limitations of the Constitution, the stronger it is made. The Northern people have had neither the wisdom nor the faith to perceive, that to observe the limitation of the Constitution was the only way to its perpetuity. Under such a Government, there must, of course, be many and endless "irrepressible conflicts," between the two great sections of the Union. The same faithlessness which has abolished the Constitution of the United States, will not fail to carry out the sectional purposes for which it has been abolished. There must be conflict; and the weaker section of the Union can only find peace and liberty, in an independence of the North. The repeated efforts made by South Carolina, in a wise conservatism, to arrest the progress of the General Government in its fatal progress to consolidation, have been unsupported, and she has been denounced as faithless to the obligations of the Constitution, by the very men and States, who were destroying it by their usurpations. It is now too late, to reform or restore the Government of the United States. All confidence in the North, is lost in the South. The faithlessness of the North for half a century, has opened a gulf of separation between the North and the South which no promises or engagements can fill. It cannot be believed, that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North, if the feelings and opinions now existing amongst them, had existed when the Constitution was framed. There was then, no Tariff-no fanaticism concerning negroes. It was the delegates from New England, who proposed in the Convention which framed the Constitution, to the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, that if they would agree to give Congress the power of regulating commerce by a majority, that they would support the extension of the African Slave Trade for twenty years. African Slavery, existed in all the States, but one. The idea, that the Southern States would be made to pay that tribute to their Northern confederates, which they had refused to pay to Great Britain; or that the institution of African slavery, would be made the grand basis of a sectional organization of the North to rule the South, never crossed the imaginations of our ancestors. The Union of the Constitution, was a union of slaveholding States. It rests on slavery, by prescribing a Representation in Congress for three-fifths of our slaves. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Convention which framed the Constitution, to shew, that the Southern States would have formed any other Union; and still less, that they would have formed a Union with more powerful non-slaveholding States, having majority in both branches of the Legislature of the Government. They were guilty of no such folly. Time and the progress of things have totally altered the relations between the Northern and Southern States, since the Union was first established. That identity of feeling, interests and institutions which once existed, is gone. They are now divided, between agricultural-and manufacturing, and commercial States; between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. Their institutions and industrial pursuits, have made them, totally different peoples. That Equality in the Government between the two sections of the Union which once existed, no longer exists. We but imitate the policy of our fathers in dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates, and seeking a confederation with slaveholding States. Experience has proved, that slaveholding States cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States. Indeed, no people ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where plunder and oppression can be practiced with impunity, seems to be the natural order of things. The fairest portions of the world elsewhere, have been turned into wilderness; and the most civilized and prosperous communities, have been impoverished and ruined by anti-slavery fanaticism. The people of the North have not left us in doubt, as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late Presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy, one who has openly declared that all the States of the United States must be made free States or slave States. It is true, that amongst those who aided in this election, there are various shades of anti-slavery hostility. But if African slavery in the Southern States, be the evil their political combination affirms it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic, must lead them to emancipation. If it is right, to preclude or abolish slavery in a territory--why should it be allowed to remain in the States? The one is not at all more unconstitutional than the other, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And when it is considered, that the Northern States will soon have the power to make that Court what they please, and that the Constitution has never been any barrier whatever to their exercise of power-what check can there be, in the unrestrained councils of the North, to emancipation? There is sympathy in association, which carries men along without principle; but when there is principle-and that principle is fortified by long-existing prejudices and feelings, association is omnipotent in party influences. In spite of all disclaimers and professions, there can be but one end by the submission by the South, to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be-the emancipation of the slaves of the South. The hypocrisy of thirty years-the faithlessness of their whole course from the commencement of our union with them, shew that the people of the non-slaveholding North, are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South, under a common Government. Not only their fanaticism, but their erroneous views of the principles of free governments, render it doubtful whether, separated from the South, they can maintain a free government amongst themselves. Numbers with them, is the great element of free government. A majority, is infallible and omnipotent. "The right divine to rule in kings," is only transferred to their majority. The very object of all Constitutions, in free popular Government, is to restrain the majority. Constitutions, therefore, according to their theory, must be most unrighteous inventions, restricting liberty. None ought to exist; but the body politic ought simply to have a political organization, to bring out and enforce the will of the majority. This theory may be harmless in a small community, having identity of interests and pursuits; but over a vast State-still more, over a vast Confederacy, having various and conflicting interests and pursuits-it is a remorseless despotism. In resisting it, as applicable to ourselves, we are vindicating the great cause of free government, more important, perhaps, to the world, than the existence of all the United States. Nor in resisting it, do we intend to depart from the safe instrumentality, the system of government we have established with them, requires. In separating from them, we invade no rights-no interest of theirs. We violate, no obligation or duty to them. As separate, independent States in Convention, we made the Constitution of the United States with them; and as separate, independent States, each State acting for itself, we adopted it. South Carolina acting in her sovereign capacity, now thinks proper to secede from the Union. She did not part with her Sovereignty, in adopting the Constitution. The last thing, a State can be presumed to have surrendered, is her Sovereignty. Her Sovereignty, is her life. Nothing but a clear, express grant, can alienate it. Inference is inadmissible. Yet it is not at all surprising, that those who have construed away all the limitations of the Constitution, should also by construction, claim the annihilation of the Sovereignty of the States. Having abolished barriers to their omnipotence, by their faithless constructions in the operations of the General Government, it is most natural that they should endeavor to do the same towards us, in the States. The truth is, they, having violated the express provisions of the Constitution, it is at an end, as a compact. It is morally obligatory only on those, who choose to accept its perverted terms. South Carolina, deeming the compact not only violated in particular features, but virtually abolished by her Northern confederates, withdraws herself as a party, from its obligations. The right to do so, is denied by her Northern confederates. They desire to establish a sectional despotism, not only omnipotent in Congress, but omnipotent over the States; and as if to manifest the imperious necessity of our secession, they threaten us with the sword, to coerce submission to their rule.

Citizens of the slaveholding States of the United States! Circumstances beyond our control, have placed us in the van of the great controversy between the Northern and Southern States. We would have preferred, that other States should have assumed the position we now occupy. Independent ourselves, we disclaim any design or desire, to lead the councils of the other Southern States. Providence has cast our lot together, by extending over us an identity of pursuits, interests and institutions. South Carolina, desires no destiny, separate from yours. To be one of a great Slaveholding Confederacy, stretching its arms over a territory larger than any power in Europe possesses-with population, four times greater than that of the whole United States, when they achieved their independence of the British Empire-with productions, which make our existence more important to the world, than that of any other people inhabiting it-with common institutions to defend, and common dangers to encounter-we ask your sympathy and confederation. Whilst constituting a portion of the United States, it has been your statesmanship which has guided it, in its mighty strides to power and expansion. In the field, as in the cabinet, you have led the way to its renown and grandeur. You have loved the Union, in whose service your great statesmen have labored, and your great soldiers have fought and conquered-not for the material benefits it conferred, but with the faith of a generous and devoted chivalry. You have long lingered in hope over the shattered remains of a broken Constitution. Compromise after compromise, formed by your concessions, has been trampled under foot, by your Northern confederates. All fraternity of feeling between the North and the South is lost, or has been converted into hate; and we, of the South, are at last driven together, by the stern destiny which controls the existence of nations. Your bitter experience, of the faithlessness and rapacity of your Northern confederates, may have been necessary, to evolve those great principles of free government, upon which the liberties of the world depend, and to prepare you for the grand mission of vindicating and re-establishing them. We rejoice, that other nations should be satisfied with their institutions. Contentment, is a great element of happiness, with nations as with individuals. We, are satisfied with ours. If they prefer a system of industry in which capital and labor are in perpetual conflict-and chronic starvation keeps down the natural increase of population-and a man is worked out in eight years-and the law ordains that children shall be worked only ten hours a day-and the sabre and bayonet are the instruments of order-be it so. It is their affair, not ours. We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor-by which our population doubles every twenty years-by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land-by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and the most fertile regions of the world, where the white man cannot labor, are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions. All we demand of other peoples is, to be let alone, to work out our own high destinies. United together, and we must be the most independent, as we are the most important among the nations of the world. United together, and we require no other instrument to conquer peace, than our beneficent productions. United together, and we must be a great, free and prosperous people, whose renown must spread throughout the civilized world, and pass down, we trust, to the remotest ages. We ask you to join us, in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States.
The first orange segment is to highlight the fact that they neglect to mention British expense incurred during wars in North America on behalf of the colonies, and the second is obvious. The highlighted section in green is just to note an irony, from Lincoln already quoted upthread:
Abraham Lincoln wrote:These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We, the People."
Speech of E.S. Dargan to the Secession Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861. More slavery references, from another state. Illustrates better than any other document I've found the abject fear of the consequences of emancipation held in the antebellum South.
I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.

I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.

Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race? To remove them from amongst us is impossible. History gives us no account of the exodus of such a number of persons. We neither have a place to which to remove them, nor the means of such removal. They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands - the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection - or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. The former result would take place, and we ourselves would become the executioners of our own slaves. To this extent would the policy of our Northern enemies drive us; and thus would we not only be reduced to poverty, but what is still worse, we should be driven to crime, to the commission of sin; and we must, therefore, this day elect between the Government formed by our fathers (the whole spirit of which has been perverted), and POVERTY AND CRIME! This being the alternative, I cannot hesitate for a moment what my duty is. I must separate from the Government of my fathers, the one under which I have lived, and under which I wished to die. But I must do my duty to my country and my fellow beings; and humanity, in my judgment, demands that Alabama should separate herself from the Government of the United States.

If I am wrong in this responsible act, I hope my God may forgive me; for I am not actuated, as I think, from any motive save that of justice and philanthropy!
Abolition would force them to commit murder, nay, genocide in his view, because that would be better than being "degraded" by having free blacks in their midst.

Compilation of primary source documents, many already quoted in this thread. I intend to at least excerpt and highlight the first address of Governor Isham Harris of Tennessee to the state assembly in a later post. It's long, but very rich in relevant material.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2013-04-29 10:35pm

Lincoln: Hypocrite or Statesman? Very cleverly disguised at first, this article goes out of its way to draw in Confederate sympathizers in the introduction and with the political cartoon, then smoothly transitions to debunking the common attacks upon Lincoln after the jump.

Branching into the deeper origins of the conflict for a moment, John C. Calhoun's speech on the Oregon Bill, to the Senate, June 27, 1848.
There is a very striking difference between the position on which the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States stand, in reference to the subject under consideration. The former desire no action of the Government; demand no law to give them any advantage in the territory about to be established; are willing to leave it, and other territories belonging to the United States, open to all their citizens, so long as they continue to be territories—and when they cease to be so, to leave it to their inhabitants to form such governments as may suit them, without restriction or condition, except that imposed by the constitution, as a prerequisite for admission into the Union. In short, they are willing to leave the whole subject where the constitution and the great and fundamental principles of self-government place it. On the contrary, the non-slaveholding States, instead of being willing to leave it on this broad and equal foundation, demand the interposition of the Government, and the passage of an act to exclude the citizens of the slaveholding States from emigrating with their property into the territory, in order to give their citizens and those they may permit, the exclusive right of settling it, while it remains in that condition, preparatory to subjecting it to like restrictions and conditions when it becomes a State. The 12th section of this bill is intended to assert and maintain this demand of the non-slaveholding States, while it remains a territory, not openly or directly, but indirectly, by extending the provisions of the bill for the establishment of the Iowa Territory to this, and by ratifying the acts of the informal and self-constituted government of Oregon, which, among others, contains one prohibiting the introduction of slavery. It thus, in reality, adopts what is called the Wilmot Proviso, not only for Oregon, but, as the bill now stands, for New Mexico and California. The amendment, on the contrary, moved by the Senator from Mississippi, near me (Mr. Davis), is intended to assert and maintain the position of the slaveholding States. It leaves the territory free and open to all the citizens of the United States, and would overrule, if adopted, the act of the self-constituted Territory of Oregon and the 12th section, as far as it relates to the subject under consideration. We have thus fairly presented the grounds taken by the non-slaveholding and the slaveholding States, or, as I shall call them, for the sake of brevity, the Northern and Southern States, in their whole extent for discussion.

The first question which offers itself for consideration is—Have the Northern States the power which they claim, to prevent the Southern people from emigrating freely, with their property, into territories belonging to the United States, and to monopolize them for their exclusive benefit?

It is, indeed, a great question. I propose to discuss it calmly and dispassionately. I shall claim nothing which does not fairly and clearly belong to the Southern States, either as members of this Federal Union, or appertain to them in their separate and individual character; nor shall I yield any thing which belongs to them in either capacity. I am influenced neither by sectional nor party considerations. If I know myself, I would repel as promptly and decidedly any aggression of the South on the North, as I would any on the part of the latter on the former. And let me add, I hold the obligation to repel aggression to be not much less solemn than that of abstaining from making aggression; and the party which submits to it when it can be resisted, to be not much less guilty and responsible for consequences than that which makes it. Nor do I stand on party grounds. What I shall say in reference to this subject, I shall say entirely without reference to the Presidential election. I hold it to be infinitely higher than that and all other questions of the day. I shall direct my efforts to ascertain what is constitutional, right and just, under a thorough conviction that the best and only way of putting an end to this, the most dangerous of all questions to our Union and institutions, is to adhere rigidly to the constitution and the dictates of justice.

With these preliminary remarks, I recur to the question—Has the North the power which it claims under the 12th section of this bill? I ask at the outset, where is the power to be found? Not, certainly, in the relation in which the Northern and Southern States stand to each other. They are the constituent parts or members of a common Federal Union; and, as such, are equals in all respects, both in dignity and rights, as is declared by all writers on governments founded on such union, and as may be inferred from arguments deduced from their nature and character. Instead, then, of affording any countenance or authority in favor of the power, the relation in which they stand to each other furnishes a strong presumption against it. Nor can it be found in the fact that the South holds property in slaves. That, too, fairly considered, instead of affording any authority for the power, furnishes a strong presumption against it. Slavery existed in the South when the constitution was framed, fully to the extent, in proportion to the population, that it does at this time. It is the only property recognized by it; the only one that entered into its formation as a political element, both in the adjustment of the relative weight of the States in the Government, and the apportionment of direct taxes; and the only one that is put under the express guaranty of the constitution. It is well known to all conversant with the history of the formation and adoption of the constitution, that the South was very jealous in reference to this property; that it constituted one of the difficulties both to its formation and adoption; and that it would not have assented to either, had the convention refused to allow to it its due weight in the Government, or to place it under the guaranty of the constitution. Nor can it be found in the way that the territories have been acquired. I will not go into particulars, in this respect, at this stage of the discussion. Suffice it to say, the whole was acquired either by purchase, out of the common funds of all the States—the South as well as the North—or by arms and mutual sacrifice of men and money; which, instead of giving any countenance in favor of the power claimed by the North, on every principle of right and justice, furnishes strong additional presumption against it.

But, if it cannot be found in either, if it exists at all, the power must be looked for in the constitutional compact, which binds those States together in a Federal Union; and I now ask, can it be found there? Does that instrument contain any provision which gives the North the power to exclude the South from a free admission into the territories of the United States with its peculiar property, and to monopolize them for its own exclusive use? If it in fact contains such power, expressed or implied, it must be found in a specific grant, or be inferred by irresistible deduction, from some clear and acknowledged power. Nothing short of the one or the other can overcome the strong presumption against it.

That there is no such specific grant may be inferred, beyond doubt, from the fact that no one has ever attempted to designate it. Instead of that, it has been assumed—taken for granted without a particle of proof—that Congress has the absolute right to govern the territories. Now, I concede, if it does in reality possess such power, it may exclude from the territories whom or what it pleases, and admit into them whom or what it pleases; and of course may exercise the power claimed by the North to exclude the South from them. But I again repeat, where is this absolute power to be found? All admit that there is no such specific grant of power. If, then, it exists at all, it must be inferred from some such power. I ask where is that to be found? The Senator from New York, behind me (Mr. Dix), points to the clause in the constitution, which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States.” Now, I undertake to affirm and maintain, beyond the possibility of doubt, that, so far from conferring absolute power to govern the territories, it confers no governmental power whatever; no, not a particle. It refers exclusively to territory, regarded simply as public lands. Every word relates to it in that character, and is wholly inapplicable to it considered in any other character than property. Take the expression “dispose of” with which it begins. It is easily understood what it means when applied to lands; and is the proper and natural expression regarding the territory in that character, when the object is to confer the right to sell or make other disposition of it. But who ever heard the expression applied to government? And what possible meaning can it have when so applied? Take the next expression, “to make all needful rules and regulations.” These, regarded separately, might, indeed, be applicable to government in a loose sense; but they are never so applied in the constitution. In every case where they are used in it, they refer to property, to things, or some process, such as the rules of Court, or of the Houses of Congress for the government of their proceedings; but never to government, which always implies persons to be governed. But if there should be any doubt in this case, the words immediately following, which restrict them to making “rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States,” must effectually expel it. They restrict their meaning, beyond the possibility of doubt, to territory regarded as property.

But if it were possible for doubt still to exist, another and conclusive argument still remains to show that the framers of the constitution did not intend to confer by this clause governmental powers. I refer to the clause in the constitution which delegates the power of exclusive legislation to Congress over this District and “all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same may be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” The places therein referred to are clearly embraced by the expression, “other property belonging to the United States,” contained in the clause I have just considered. But it is certain, that if it had been the intention of the framers of the constitution to confer governmental powers over such places by that clause, they never would have delegated it by this. They were incapable of doing a thing so absurd. But it is equally certain, if they did not intend to confer such power over them, they could not have intended it over territories. Whatever was conferred by the same words, in reference to one, must have been intended to be conferred in reference to the other, and the reverse. The opposite supposition would be absurd. But, it may be asked why the term—territory—was omitted in the delegation of exclusive legislation to Congress over the places enumerated? Very satisfactory reasons may, in my opinion, be assigned. The former were limited to places lying within the limits and jurisdiction of the States, and the latter to public land lying beyond both. The cession and purchase of the former, with the consent of the State within which they might be situated, did not oust the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the State. They still remained in the State, the United States acquiring only the title to the place. It, therefore, became necessary to confer on Congress, by express delegation, the exercise of exclusive power of legislation over this District and such places, in order to carry out the object of the purchase and session. It was simply intended to withdraw them from under the legislatures of the respective States within which they might lie, and substitute that of Congress in its place, subject to the restrictions of the constitution and the objects for which the places were acquired, leaving, as I have said, the sovereignty still in the State in which they are situated, but in abeyance, as far as it extends to legislation. Thus, in the case of this District, since the retrocession to Virginia of the part beyond the Potomac, the sovereignty still continues in Maryland in the manner stated. But the case is very different in reference to territories, lying as they do beyond the limits and jurisdictions of all the States. The United States possess not simply the right of ownership over them, but that of exclusive dominion and sovereignty; and hence it was not necessary to exclude the power of the States to legislate over them, by delegating the exercise of exclusive legislation to Congress. It would have been an act of supererogation. It may be proper to remark in this connection, that the power of exclusive legislation, conferred in these cases, must not be confounded with the power of absolute legislation. They are very different things. It is true that absolute power of legislation is always exclusive, but it by no means follows that exclusive power of legislation or of government is likewise always absolute. Congress has the exclusive power of legislation, as far as this Government is concerned, and the State legislatures as far as their respective governments are concerned—but we all know that both are subject to many and important restrictions and conditions which the nature of absolute power excludes.

I have now made good the assertion I ventured to make, that the clause in the constitution relied on by the Senator from New York, so far from conferring the absolute power of government over the territory claimed by him, and others who agree with him, confers not a particle of governmental power. Having conclusively established this, the long list of precedents, cited by the Senator to prop up the power which he sought in the clause, falls to the ground with the fabric which he raised; and I am thus exempted from the necessity of referring to them, and replying to them one by one.

But there is one precedent, referred to by the Senator, unconnected with the power, and on that account requiring particular notice. I refer to the ordinance of 1787, which was adopted by the old Congress of the Confederation while the convention that framed the constitution was in session, and about one year before its adoption—and of course on the very eve of the expiration of the old Confederation. Against its introduction, I might object that the act of the Congress of the Confederation cannot rightfully form precedents for this Government; but I waive that. I waive also the objection that the act was consummated when that Government was in extremis, and could hardly be considered compos mentis. I waive also the fact that the ordinance assumed the form of a compact, and was adopted when only eight States were present, while the articles of confederation required nine to form compacts. I waive also the fact, that Mr. Madison declared that the act was without shadow of constitutional authority, and shall proceed to show, from the history of its adoption, that it cannot justly be considered of any binding force.

Virginia made the cession of the territory north of the Ohio, and lying between it and the Mississippi and the lakes, in 1784. It now contains the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a very considerable extent of territory lying north of the latter. Shortly after the cession, a committee of three was raised, of whom Mr. Jefferson was one. They reported an ordinance for the establishment of the territory, containing, among other provisions, one, of which Mr. Jefferson was the author, excluding slavery from the territory after the year 1800. It was reported to Congress, but this provision was struck out. On the question of striking out, every Southern State present voted in favor of it; and, what is more striking, every Southern delegate voted the same way, Mr. Jefferson alone excepted. The ordinance was adopted without the provision. At the next session, Rufus King, then a member of the old Congress, moved a proposition, very much in the same shape as the sixth article (that which excludes slavery) in the ordinance as it now stands, with the exception of its proviso. It was referred to a committee, but there was no action on it. A committee was moved the next or the subsequent year, which reported without including or noticing Mr. King’s proposition. Mr. Dane was a member of that committee, and proposed a provision the same as that in the ordinance as it passed, but the committee reported without including it. Finally, another committee was raised, at the head of which was Mr. Carrington of Virginia, and of which Mr. Dane was also a member. That committee reported without including the amendment previously proposed by him. Mr. Dane moved his proposition, which was adopted, and the report of the committee thus amended became the ordinance of 1787.

It may be inferred from this brief historical sketch, that the ordinance was a compromise between the Southern and Northern States, of which the terms were, that slavery should be excluded from the territory upon condition that fugitive slaves, who might take refuge in the territory, should be delivered up to their owners, as stipulated in the proviso of the sixth article of the ordinance. It is manifest, from what has been stated, that the South was unitedly and obstinately opposed to the provision when first moved; that the proposition of Mr. King, without the proviso, was in like manner resisted by the South, as may be inferred from its entire want of success, and that it never could be brought to agree to it until the provision for the delivery up of fugitive slaves was incorporated in it. But it is well understood that a compromise involves not a surrender, but simply a waiver of the right or power; and hence in the case of individuals, it is a well-established legal principle, that an offer to settle by compromise a litigated claim, is no evidence against the justice of the claim on the side of the party making it. The South, to her honor, has observed with fidelity her engagements under this compromise; in proof of which, I appeal to the precedents cited by the Senator from New York, intended by him to establish the fact of her acquiescence in the ordinance. I admit that she has acquiesced in the several acts of Congress to carry it into effect; but the Senator is mistaken in supposing that it is proof of a surrender, on her part, of the power over the territories which he claims for Congress. No, she never has, and I trust never will, make such a surrender. Instead of that, it is conclusive proof of her fidelity to her engagements. She has never attempted to set aside the ordinance, or to deprive the territory, and the States erected within its limits, of any right or advantage it was intended to confer. But I regret that as much cannot be said in favor of the fidelity with which it has been observed on their part. With the single exception of the State of Illinois—be it said to her honor—every other State erected within its limits has pursued a course, and adopted measures, which have rendered the stipulations of the proviso to deliver up fugitive slaves nugatory. Wisconsin may, also, be an exception, as she has just entered the Union, and has hardly had time to act on the subject. They have gone further, and suffered individuals to form combinations, without an effort to suppress them, for the purpose of enticing and seducing the slaves to leave their masters, and to run them into Canada beyond the reach of our laws—in open violation, not only of the stipulations of the ordinance, but of the constitution itself. If I express myself strongly, it is not for the purpose of producing excitement, but to draw the attention of the Senate forcibly to the subject. My object is to lay bare the subject under consideration, just as a surgeon probes to the bottom and lays open a wound, not to cause pain to his patient, but for the purpose of healing it.

I come now to another precedent of a similar character, but differing in this—that it took place under this Government, and not under that of the old Confederation; I refer to what is known as the Missouri Compromise. It is more recent and better known, and may be more readily despatched.

After an arduous struggle of more than a year, on the question whether Missouri should come into the Union with or without restrictions prohibiting slavery, a compromise line was adopted between the North and the South; but it was done under circumstances which made it nowise obligatory on the latter. It is true, it was moved by one of her distinguished citizens (Mr. Clay); but it is equally so, that it was carried by the almost united vote of the North against the almost united vote of the South; and was thus imposed on the latter by superior numbers in opposition to her strenuous efforts. The South has never given her sanction to it, or assented to the power it asserted. She was voted down, and has simply acquiesced in an arrangement which she has not had the power to reverse, and which she could not attempt to do without disturbing the peace and harmony of the Union—to which she has ever been averse. Acting on this principle, she permitted the Territory of Iowa to be formed, and the State to be admitted into the Union, under the compromise, without objection; and that is now quoted by the Senator from New York to prove her surrender of the power he claims for Congress.

To add to the strength of this claim, the advocates of the power hold up the name of Jefferson in its favor, and go so far as to call him the author of the so-called Wilmot Proviso, which is but a general expression of a power of which the Missouri compromise is a case of its application. If we may judge by his opinion of that case, what his opinion was of the principle, instead of being the author of the proviso, or being in its favor, no one could be more deadly hostile to it. In a letter addressed to the elder Adams in 1819, in answer to one from him, he uses these remarkable expressions in reference to the Missouri question:

The banks, bankrupt law, manufactures, Spanish treaty, are nothing. These are occurrences, which, like waves in a storm, will pass under the ship. But the Missouri question is a breaker on which we lose the Missouri country by revolt, and what more, God only knows.

To understand the full force of these expressions, it must be borne in mind that the questions enumerated were the great and exciting political questions of the day, on which parties divided. The banks and bankrupt law had long been so. Manufactures, or what has since been called the protective tariff, was at the time a subject of great excitement, as was the Spanish treaty, that is, the treaty by which Florida was ceded to the Union, and by which the western boundary between Mexico and the United States was settled, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific ocean. All these exciting party questions of the day Mr. Jefferson regarded as nothing, compared to the Missouri question. He looked on all of them as in their nature fugitive; and, to use his own forcible expression, “would pass off under the ship of State like waves in a storm.” Not so that fatal question. It was a breaker on which it was destined to be stranded. And yet his name is quoted by the incendiaries of the present day in support of, and as the author of, a proviso which would give indefinite and universal extension of this fatal question to all the territories! It was compromised the next year by the adoption of the line to which I have referred. Mr. Holmes of Maine, long a member of this body, who voted for the measure, addressed a letter to Mr. Jefferson, inclosing a copy of his speech on the occasion. It drew out an answer from him which ought to be treasured up in the heart of every man who loves the country and its institutions. It is brief: I will send it to the Secretary to be read. The time of the Senate cannot be better occupied than in listening to it:
To John Holmes.


April 22, 1820

I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment; but this is a reprieve only, not the final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property (for so it is misnamed) is a bagatelle, which would not cost me a second thought, if in that way a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that as the free passage of slaves from one State to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burden on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence, too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a State. This certainly is the exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them, and given to the General Government. Could Congress, for example, say that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other State?

I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I shall live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle, more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect.

Thomas Jefferson
Mark his prophetic words! Mark his profound reasoning!

It [the question] is hushed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived, and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated, and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.

Twenty-eight years have passed since these remarkable words were penned, and there is not a thought which time has not thus far verified, and, it is to be feared, continue to verify until the whole will be fulfilled. Certain it is, that he regarded the compromise line as utterly inadequate to arrest that fatal course of events, which his keen sagacity anticipated from the question. It was but a “reprieve.” Mark the deeply melancholy impression which it made on his mind:

I regret that I am to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness for themselves, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I shall live not to weep over it.

Can any one believe, after listening to this letter, that Jefferson is the author of the so-called Wilmot Proviso, or ever favored it? And yet there are at this time strenuous efforts making in the North to form a purely sectional party on it, and that, too, under the sanction of those who profess the highest veneration for his character and principles! But I must speak the truth: while I vindicate the memory of Jefferson from so foul a charge, I hold he is not blameless in reference to this subject. He committed a great error in inserting the provision he did in the plan he reported for the government of the territory, as much modified as it was. It was the first blow—the first essay “to draw a geographical line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political.” It originated with him in philanthropic, but mistaken views of the most dangerous character, as I shall show in the sequel. Others, with very different feelings and views, followed, and have given to it a direction and impetus, which, if not promptly and efficiently arrested, will end in the dissolution of the Union, and the destruction of our political institutions.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2013-04-29 10:36pm

Calhoun, continued because his speech actually hit the character limit.
I have, I trust, established beyond controversy, that neither the ordinance of 1787, nor the Missouri compromise, nor the precedents growing out of them, nor the authority of Mr. Jefferson, furnishes any evidence whatever to prove that Congress possesses the power over the territory, claimed by those who advocate the 12th section of this bill. But admit, for the sake of argument, that I am mistaken, and that the objections I have urged against them are groundless—give them all the force which can be claimed for precedents—and they would not have the weight of a feather against the strong presumption which I, at the outset of my remarks, showed to be opposed to the existence of the power. Precedents, even in a court of justice, can have but little weight, except where the law is doubtful, and should have little in a deliberative body in any case on a constitutional question—and none, where the power to which it has been attempted to trace it does not exist, as I have shown, I trust, to be the case in this instance.

But, while I deny that the clause relating to the territory and other property of the United States, confers any governmental, or that Congress possesses absolute, power over the territories, I by no means deny that it has any power over them. Such a denial would be idle on any occasion, but much more so on this, when we are engaged in constituting a territorial government, without an objection being whispered from any quarter against our right to do so. If there be any Senator of that opinion, he ought at once to rise and move to lay the bill on the table, or to dispose of it in some other way, so as to prevent the waste of time on a subject upon which we have no right to act. Assuming, then, that we possess the power, the only questions that remain are—whence is it derived? and, what is its extent?

As to its origin, I concur in the opinion expressed by Chief Justice Marshall, in one of the cases read by the Senator from New York, that it is derived from the right of acquiring territory; and I am the more thoroughly confirmed in it from the fact that I entertained the opinion long before I knew it to be his. As to the right of acquiring territory, I agree with the Senator from New York, that it is embraced, without going further, both in the war and treaty powers. Admitting, then—what has never been denied, and what it would be idle to deny in a discussion which relates to territories acquired both by war and treaties—that the United States have the right to acquire territories, it would seem to follow, by necessary consequence, that they have the right to govern them. As they possess the entire right of soil, dominion, and sovereignty over them, they must necessarily carry with them the right to govern. But this Government, as the sole agent and representative of the United States—that is, the States of the Union in their federal character—must, as such, possess the sole right, if it exists at all. But, if there be any one disposed to take a different view of the origin of the power, I shall make no points with him—for whatever may be its origin, the conclusion would be the same, as I shall presently show.

But it would be a great error to conclude that Congress has the absolute power of governing the territories, because it has the sole or exclusive power. The reverse is the case. It is subject to many and important restrictions and conditions, of which some are expressed and others implied. Among the former may be classed all the general and absolute prohibitions of the constitution; that is, all those which prohibit the exercise of certain powers under any circumstance. In this class is included the prohibition of granting titles of nobility; passing ex post facto laws and bills of attainder; the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, except in certain cases; making laws respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting its free exercise; and every other of like description, which conclusively shows that the power of Congress over the territories is not absolute. Indeed, it is a great error to suppose that either this or the State Governments possess, in any case, absolute power. Such power can belong only to the supreme ultimate power, called sovereignty, and that, in our system, resides in the people of the several States of the Union. With us, governments, both federal and State, are but agents, or, more properly, trustees, and, as such, possess, not absolute, but subordinate and limited powers; for all powers possessed by such governments must, from their nature, be trust powers, and subject to all the restrictions to which that class of powers are.

Among them, they are restricted to the nature and the objects of the trust; and hence no government under our system, federal or State, has the right to do any thing inconsistent with the nature of the powers intrusted to it, or the objects for which it was intrusted; or to express it in more usual language, for which it was delegated. To do either would be to pervert the power to purposes never intended, and would be a violation of the constitution—and that in the most dangerous way it could be made, because more easily done and less easily detected. But there is another and important class of restrictions which more directly relate to the subject under discussion. I refer to those imposed on the trustees by the nature and character of the party, who constituted the trustees and invested them with the trust powers to be exercised for its benefit. In this case it is the United States, that is, the several States of the Union. It was they who constituted the Government as their representative or trustee, and intrusted it with powers to be exercised for their common and joint benefit. To them in their united character the territories belong, as is expressly declared by the constitution. They are their joint and common owners, regarded as property or land; and in them, severally, reside the dominion and sovereignty over them. They are as much the territories of one State as another—of Virginia as of New York, of the Southern as the Northern States. They are the territories of all, because they are the territories of each; and not of each, because they are the territories of the whole. Add to this the perfect equality of dignity, as well as of rights, which appertain to them as members of a common federal Union, which all writers on the subject admit to be a fundamental and essential relation between States so united; and it must be manifest that Congress, in governing the territories, can give no preference or advantage to one State over another, or to one portion or section of the union over another, without depriving the State or section over which the preference is given, or from which the advantage is withheld, of their clear and unquestionable right, and subverting the very foundation on which the Union and Government rest. It has no more power to do so than to subvert the constitution itself. Indeed, the act itself would be subversion. It would destroy the relation of equality on the part of the Southern States, and sink them to mere dependants of the Northern, to the total destruction of the federal Union.

I have now shown, I trust, beyond controversy, that Congress has no power whatever to exclude the citizens of the Southern States from emigrating with their property into the territories of the United States, or to give an exclusive monopoly of them to the North. I now propose to go one step further, and show that neither the inhabitants of the territories nor their legislatures have any such right. A very few words will be sufficient for the purpose; for of all the positions ever taken, I hold that which claims the power for them to be the most absurd. If the territories belong to the United States—if the ownership, dominion and sovereignty over them be in the States of this Union, then neither the inhabitants of the territories, nor their legislatures, can exercise any power but what is subordinate to them: but if the contrary could be shown, which I hold to be impossible, it would be subject to all the restrictions, to which I have shown the power of Congress is; and for the same reason, whatever power they might hold, would, in the case supposed, be subordinate to the constitution, and controlled by the nature and character of our political institutions. But if the reverse be true—if the dominion and sovereignty over the territories be in their inhabitants, instead of the United States—they would indeed, in that case, have the exclusive and absolute power of governing them, and might exclude whom they pleased, or what they pleased. But, in that case, they would cease to be the territories of the United States the moment we acquired them and permitted them to be inhabited. The first half-dozen of squatters would become the sovereigns, with full dominion and sovereignty over them; and the conquered people of New Mexico and California would become the sovereigns of the country as soon as they became the territories of the United States, vested with the full right of excluding even their conquerors. There is no escaping from the alternative, but by resorting to the greatest of all absurdities, that of a divided sovereignty—a sovereignty, a part of which would reside in the United States, and a part in the inhabitants of the territory. How can sovereignty—the ultimate and supreme power of a State—be divided? The exercise of the powers of sovereignty may be divided, but how can there be two supreme powers?

We are next told that the laws of Mexico preclude slavery; and assuming that they will remain in force until repealed, it is contended that, until Congress passes an act for their repeal, the citizens of the South cannot emigrate with their property into the territory acquired from her. I admit the laws of Mexico prohibit, not slavery, but slavery in the form it exists with us. The Puros are as much slaves as our negroes, and are less intelligent and well treated. But, I deny that the laws of Mexico can have the effect attributed to them. As soon as the treaty between the two countries is ratified, the sovereignty and authority of Mexico in the territory acquired by it becomes extinct, and that of the United States is substituted in its place, carrying with it the constitution, with its overriding control, over all the laws and institutions of Mexico inconsistent with it. It is true, the municipal laws of the territory not inconsistent with the condition and the nature of our political system would, according to the writers on the laws of nations, remain, until changed, not as a matter of right, but merely of sufferance, and as between the inhabitants of territory, in order to avoid a state of anarchy, before they can be brought under our laws. This is the utmost limit to which sufferance goes. Under it the peon system would continue; but not to the exclusion of such of our citizens as may choose to emigrate with their slaves or other property, that may be excluded by the laws of Mexico. The humane provisions of the laws of nations go no further than to protect the inhabitants in their property and civil rights, under their former laws, until others can be substituted. To extend them further and give them the force of excluding emigrants from the United States, because their property or religion are such as are prohibited from being introduced by the laws of Mexico, would not only prevent a great majority of the people of the United States from emigrating into the acquired territory, but would give a higher authority to the extinct power of Mexico over the territory than to our actual authority over it. I say the great majority, for the laws of Mexico not only prohibit the introduction of slaves, but of many other descriptions of property, and also the Protestant religion, which Congress itself cannot prohibit. To such absurdity would the supposition lead.

I have now concluded the discussion, so far as it relates to the power; and have, I trust, established beyond controversy, that the territories are free and open to all of the citizens of the United States, and that there is no power, under any aspect the subject can be viewed in, by which the citizens of the South can be excluded from emigrating with their property into any of them. I have advanced no argument which I do not believe to be true, nor pushed any one beyond what truth would strictly warrant. But, if mistaken—if my arguments, instead of being sound and true, as I hold them beyond controversy to be, should turn out to be a mere mass of sophisms—and if in consequence, the barrier opposed by the want of power, should be surmounted, there is another still in the way, that cannot be. The mere possession of power is not, of itself, sufficient to justify its exercise. It must be, in addition, shown that, in the given case, it can be rightfully and justly exercised. Under our system, the first inquiry is: Does the constitution authorize the exercise of the power? If that be decided in the affirmative, the next is: Can it be rightfully and justly exercised under the circumstances? And it is not, until this, too, is decided in the affirmative, that the question of the expediency of exercising it, is presented for consideration.

Now, I put the question solemnly to the Senators from the North: Can you rightly and justly exclude the South from territories of the United States, and monopolize them for yourselves, even if, in your opinion, you should have the power? It is this question I wish to press on your attention with all due solemnity and decorum. The North and the South stand in the relation of partners in a common Union, with equal dignity and equal rights. We of the South have contributed our full share of funds, and shed our full share of blood for the acquisition of our territories. Can you, then, on any principle of equity and justice, deprive us of our full share in their benefit and advantage? Are you ready to affirm that a majority of the partners in a joint concern have the right to monopolize its benefits to the exclusion of the minority, even in cases where they have contributed their full share to the concern? But, to present the case more strongly and vividly, I shall descend from generals to particulars, and shall begin with the Oregon Territory. Our title to it is founded first, and in my opinion, mainly on our purchase of Louisiana; that was strengthened by the Florida treaty, which transferred to us the title also of Spain; and both by the discovery of the mouth of the Columbia river by Capt. Gray, and the exploration of the entire stream, from its source down to its mouth, by Lewis and Clark. The purchase of Louisiana cost fifteen millions of dollars; and we paid Spain five millions for the Florida treaty; making twenty in all. This large sum was advanced out of the common funds of the Union, the South, to say the least, contributing her full share. The discovery was made, it is true, by a citizen of Massachusetts; but he sailed under the flag and protection of the Union, and of course, whatever title was derived from his discovery, accrued to the benefit of the Union. The exploration of Lewis and Clark was at the expense of the Union. We are now about to form it into a territory; the expense of governing which, while it remains so, must be met out of the common fund, and towards which the South must contribute her full share. The expense will not be small. Already there is an Indian war to be put down, and a regiment for that purpose, and to protect the territory, has been ordered there. To what extent the expense may extend we know not, but it will, not improbably, involve millions before the territory becomes a State. I now ask, Is it right, is it just, after having contributed our full share for the acquisition of the territory, with the liability of contributing, in addition, our full share of the expense for its government, that we should be shut out of the territory, and be excluded from participating in its benefits? What would be thought of such conduct in the case of individuals? And can that be right and just in Government, which any right-minded man would cry out to be base and dishonest in private life? If it would be so pronounced in a partnership of thirty individuals, how can it be pronounced otherwise in one of thirty States?

The case of our recently acquired territory from Mexico is, if possible, more marked. The events connected with the acquisition are too well known to require a long narrative. It was won by arms, and a great sacrifice of men and money. The South, in the contest, performed her full share of military duty, and earned a full share of military honor; has poured out her full share of blood freely, and has and will bear a full share of the expense; has evinced a full share of skill and bravery, and if I were to say even more than her full share of both, I would not go beyond the truth; to be attributed, however, to no superiority in either respect, but to accidental circumstances, which gave both its officers and soldiers more favorable opportunities for their display. All have done their duty nobly, and high courage and gallantry are but common attributes of our people. Would it be right and just to close a territory thus won against the South, and leave it open exclusively to the North? Would it deserve the name of free soil, if one-half of the Union should be excluded and the other half should monopolize it, when it was won by the joint expense and joint efforts of all? Is the great law to be reversed—that which is won by all should be equally enjoyed by all? These are questions which address themselves more to the heart than the head. Feeble must be the intellect which does not see what is right and just, and bad must be the heart, unless unconsciously under the control of deep and abiding prejudice, which hesitates in pronouncing on which side they are to be found. Now, I put the question to the Senators from the Noah: What are you prepared to do? Are you prepared to prostrate the barriers of the constitution, and in open defiance of the dictates of equity and justice, to exclude the South from the territories and monopolize them for the North? If so, vote against the amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis); and if that should fail, vote against striking out the 12th section. We shall then know what to expect. If not, place us on some ground where we can stand as equals in rights and dignity, and where we shall not be excluded from what has been acquired at the common expense, and won by common skill and gallantry. All we demand is to stand on the same level with yourselves, and to participate equally in what belongs to all. Less we cannot take.

I turn now to my friends of the South, and ask: What are you prepared to do? If neither the barriers of the constitution nor the high sense of right and justice should prove sufficient to protect you, are you prepared to sink down into a state of acknowledged inferiority; to be stripped of your dignity of equals among equals, and be deprived of your equality of rights in this federal partnership of States? If so, you are wofully degenerated from your sires, and will well deserve to change condition with your slaves; but if not, prepare to meet the issue. The time is at hand, if the question should not be speedily settled, when the South must rise up, and bravely defend herself, or sink down into base and acknowledged inferiority; and it is because I clearly perceive that this period is favorable for settling it, if it is ever to be settled, that I am in favor of pressing the question now to a decision—not because I have any desire whatever to embarrass either party in reference to the Presidential election. At no other period could the two great parties into which the country is divided be made to see and feel so clearly and intensely the embarrassment and danger caused by the question. Indeed, they must be blind not to perceive that there is a power in action that must burst asunder the ties that bind them together, strong as they are, unless it should be speedily settled. Now is the time, if ever. Cast your eyes to the North, and mark what is going on there; reflect on the tendency of events for the last three years in reference to this the most vital of all questions, and you must see that no time should be lost.

I am thus brought to the question, How can the question be settled? It can, in my opinion, be finally and permanently adjusted but one way, and that is on the high principles of justice and the constitution. Fear not to leave it to them. The less you do the better. If the North and South cannot stand together on their broad and solid foundation, there is none other on which they can. If the obligations of the constitution and justice be too feeble to command the respect of the North, how can the South expect that she will regard the far more feeble obligations of an act of Congress? Nor should the North fear that, by leaving it where justice and the constitution leave it, she would be excluded from her full share of the territories. In my opinion, if it be left there, climate, soil and other circumstances would fix the line between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States in about 36° 30′. It may zigzag a little, to accommodate itself to circumstances—sometimes passing to the north, and at others passing to the south of it; but that would matter little, and would be more satisfactory to all, and tend less to alienation between the two great sections, than a rigid, straight, artificial line, prescribed by an act of Congress.

And here, let me say to Senators from the North—you make a great mistake in supposing that the portion which might fall to the south of whatever line might be drawn, if left to soil, and climate, and circumstances to determine, would be closed to the white labor of the North, because it could not mingle with slave labor without degradation. The fact is not so. There is no part of the world where agricultural, mechanical, and other descriptions of labor are more respected than in the South, with the exception of two descriptions of employment, that of menial and body servants. No Southern man—not the poorest or the lowest—will, under any circumstance, submit to perform either of them. He has too much pride for that, and I rejoice that he has. They are unsuited to the spirit of a freeman. But the man who would spurn them feels not the least degradation to work in the same field with his slave, or to be employed to work with them in the same field or in any mechanical operation; and, when so employed, they claim the right, and are admitted, in the country portion of the South, of sitting at the table of their employers. Can as much, on the score of equality, be said for the North? With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals, if honest and industrious, and hence have a position and pride of character of which neither poverty nor misfortune can deprive them.

But I go further, and hold that justice and the constitution are the easiest and safest guard on which the question can be settled, regarded in reference to party. It may be settled on that ground simply by non-action—by leaving the territories free and open to the emigration of all the world, so long as they continue so; and when they become States, to adopt whatever constitution they please, with the single restriction, to be republican, in order to * their admission into the Union. If a party cannot safely take this broad and solid position and successfully maintain it, what other can it take and maintain? If it cannot maintain itself by an appeal to the great principles of justice, the constitution, and self-government, to what other, sufficiently strong to uphold them in public opinion, can they appeal? I greatly mistake the character of the people of this Union, if such an appeal would not prove successful, if either party should have the magnanimity to step forward and boldly make it. It would, in my opinion, be received with shouts of approbation by the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter. There is a deep feeling pervading the country that the Union and our political institutions are in danger, which such a course would dispel.

Now is the time to take the step, and bring about a result so devoutly to be wished. I have believed, from the beginning, that this was the only question sufficiently potent to dissolve the Union, and subvert our system of government; and that the sooner it was met and settled, the safer and better for all. I have never doubted but that, if permitted to progress beyond a certain point, its settlement would become impossible, and am under deep conviction that it is now rapidly approaching it—and that if it is ever to be averted, it must be done speedily. In uttering these opinions I look to the whole. If I speak earnestly, it is to save and protect all. As deep as is the stake of the South in the Union and our political institutions, it is not deeper than that of the North. We shall be as well prepared and as capable of meeting whatever may come, as you.

Now, let me say, Senators, if our Union and system of government are doomed to perish, and we to share the fate of so many great people who have gone before us, the historian, who, in some future day, may record the events ending in so calamitous a result, will devote his first chapter to the ordinance of 1787, lauded as it and its authors have been, as the first of that series which led to it. His next chapter will be devoted to the Missouri compromise, and the next to the present agitation. Whether there will be another beyond, I know not. It will depend on what we may do.

If he should possess a philosophical turn of mind, and be disposed to look to more remote and recondite causes, he will trace it to a proposition which originated in a hypothetical truism, but which, as now expressed and now understood, is the most false and dangerous of all political errors. The proposition to which I allude, has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is, that “all men are born free and equal.” I am not afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be intrenched, or however widely extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this subject and occasion.

Taking the proposition literally (it is in that sense it is understood), there is not a word of truth in it. It begins with “all men are born,” which is utterly untrue. Men are not born. Infants are born. They grow to be men. And concludes with asserting that they are born “free and equal,” which is not less false. They are not born free. While infants they are incapable of freedom, being destitute alike of the capacity of thinking and acting, without which there can be no freedom. Besides, they are necessarily born subject to their parents, and remain so among all people, savage and civilized, until the development of their intellect and physical capacity enables them to take care of themselves. They grow to all the freedom of which the condition in which they were born permits, by growing to be men. Nor is it less false that they are born “equal.”
They are not so in any sense in which it can be regarded; and thus, as I have asserted, there is not a word of truth in the whole proposition, as expressed and generally understood.

If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition differently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That asserts that “all men are created equal.” The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous. All men are not created. According to the Bible, only two, a man and a woman, ever were, and of these one was pronounced subordinate to the other. All others have come into the world by being born, and in no sense, as I have shown, either free or equal. But this form of expression being less striking and popular, has given way to the present, and under the authority of a document put forth on so great an occasion, and leading to such important consequences, has spread far and wide, and fixed itself deeply in the public mind. It was inserted in our Declaration of Independence without any necessity. It made no necessary part of our justification in separating from the parent country, and declaring ourselves independent. Breach of our chartered privileges, and lawless encroachment on our acknowledged and well-established rights by the parent country, were the real causes, and of themselves sufficient, without resorting to any other, to justify the step. Nor had it any weight in constructing the governments which were substituted in the place of the colonial. They were formed of the old materials and on practical and well-established principles, borrowed for the most part from our own experience and that of the country from which we sprang.

If the proposition be traced still further back, it will be found to have been adopted from certain writers on government who had attained much celebrity in the early settlement of these States, and with whose writings all the prominent actors in our revolution were familiar. Among these, Locke and Sydney were prominent. But they expressed it very differently. According to their expression, “all men in the state of nature were free and equal.” From this the others were derived; and it was this to which I referred when I called it a hypothetical truism. To understand why, will require some explanation.

Man, for the purpose of reasoning, may be regarded in three different states: in a state of individuality; that is, living by himself apart from the rest of his species. In the social; that is, living in society, associated with others of his species. And in the political; that is, being under government. We may reason as to what would be his rights and duties in either, without taking into consideration whether he could exist in it or not. It is certain, that in the first, the very supposition that he lived apart and separated from all others, would make him free and equal. No one in such a state could have the right to command or control another. Every man would be his own master, and might do just as he pleased. But it is equally clear, that man cannot exist in such a state; that he is by nature social, and that society is necessary, not only to the proper development of all his faculties, moral and intellectual, but to the very existence of his race. Such being the case, the state is a purely hypothetical one; and when we say all men are free and equal in it, we announce a mere hypothetical truism; that is, a truism resting on a mere supposition that cannot exist, and of course one of little or no practical value.

But to call it a state of nature was a great misnomer, and has led to dangerous errors; for that cannot justly be called a state of nature which is so opposed to the constitution of man as to be inconsistent with the existence of his race and the development of the high faculties, mental and moral, with which he is endowed by his Creator.

Nor is the social state of itself his natural state; for society can no more exist without government, in one form or another, than man without society. It is the political, then, which includes the social, that is his natural state. It is the one for which his Creator formed him, into which he is impelled irresistibly, and in which only his race can exist and all its faculties be fully developed.

Such being the case, it follows that any, the worst form of government, is better than anarchy; and that individual liberty, or freedom, must be subordinate to whatever power may be necessary to protect society against anarchy within or destruction from without; for the safety and well-being of society is as paramount to individual liberty, as the safety and well-being of the race is to that of individuals; and in the same proportion, the power necessary for the safety of society is paramount to individual liberty. On the contrary, government has no right to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being of society. Such is the boundary which separates the power of government and the liberty of the citizen or subject in the political state, which, as I have shown, is the natural state of man—the only one in which his race can exist, and the one in which he is born, lives, and dies.

It follows from all this that the quantum of power on the part of the government, and of liberty on that of individuals, instead of being equal in all cases, must necessarily be very unequal among different people, according to their different conditions. For just in proportion as a people are ignorant, stupid, debased, corrupt, exposed to violence within and danger from without, the power necessary for government to possess, in order to preserve society against anarchy and destruction becomes greater and greater, and individual liberty less and less, until the lowest condition is reached, when absolute and despotic power becomes necessary on the part of the government, and individual liberty extinct. So, on the contrary, just as a people rise in the scale of intelligence, virtue, and patriotism, and the more perfectly they become acquainted with the nature of government, the ends for which it was ordered, and how it ought to be administered, and the less the tendency to violence and disorder within, and danger from abroad, the power necessary for government becomes less and less, and individual liberty greater and greater. Instead, then, of all men having the same right to liberty and equality, as is claimed by those who hold that they are all born free and equal, liberty is the noble and highest reward bestowed on mental and moral development, combined with favorable circumstances. Instead, then, of liberty and equality being born with man; instead of all men and all classes and descriptions being equally entitled to them, they are high prizes to be won, and are in their most perfect state, not only the highest reward that can be bestowed on our race, but the most difficult to be won—and when won, the most difficult to be preserved.

They have been made vastly more so by the dangerous error I have attempted to expose, that all men are born free and equal, as if those high qualities belonged to man without effort to acquire them, and to all equally alike, regardless of their intellectual and moral condition. The attempt to carry into practice this, the most dangerous of all political error, and to bestow on all, without regard to their fitness either to acquire or maintain liberty, that unbounded and individual liberty supposed to belong to man in the hypothetical and misnamed state of nature, has done more to retard the cause of liberty and civilization, and is doing more at present, than all other causes combined. While it is powerful to pull down governments, it is still more powerful to prevent their construction on proper principles. It is the leading cause among those which have placed Europe in its present anarchical condition, and which mainly stands in the way of reconstructing good governments in the place of those which have been overthrown, threatening thereby the quarter of the globe most advanced in progress and civilization with hopeless anarchy, to be followed by military despotism. Nor are we exempt from its disorganizing effects. We now begin to experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in the declaration of our independence. For a long time it lay dormant; but in the process of time it began to germinate, and produce its poisonous fruits. It had strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson, the author of that document, which caused him to take an utterly false view of the subordinate relation of the black to the white race in the South; and to hold, in consequence, that the former, though utterly unqualified to possess liberty, were as fully entitled to both liberty and equality as the latter; and that to deprive them of it was unjust and immoral. To this error, his proposition to exclude slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio may be traced, and to that the ordinance of ’87, and through it the deep and dangerous agitation which now threatens to ingulf, and will certainly ingulf, if not speedily settled, our political institutions, and involve the country in countless woes.
For his closing there, I cannot put it better than this: "Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim." - Thomas Macaulay

Calhoun liked to talk a lot, but I include the full speech because this is the Library and full context can be useful.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2014-02-27 10:57pm

It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2014-05-27 05:46pm

James Madison to Nicholas Trist, December 23, 1832
Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir

I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of — 98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the "rights" &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c. should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol 2, with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force, and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion, and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of the passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm against the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself by assuming the high character of mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it.

If you can fix, and will name the day of your arrival at Orange Court House, we will have a horse there for you, and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the state of the roads produced by the wagons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2014-11-17 10:24pm

The document repository and the Claremont Institute articles have been taken down. Fortunately, the Internet Archive has saved the day again. primary source document repository.

The Case Against Secession.

Defending the Cause of Human Freedom.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2015-06-08 09:53pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Lincoln: Hypocrite or Statesman? Very cleverly disguised at first, this article goes out of its way to draw in Confederate sympathizers in the introduction and with the political cartoon, then smoothly transitions to debunking the common attacks upon Lincoln after the jump.
The Hoover Institution's website was reorganized and this article moved; it is now here.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2015-11-01 09:43am

White v. Hart, 1871 SCOTUS case ruling that, "At no time during the rebellion were the rebellious states out of the pale of the Union. Their constitutional duties and obligations remained unaffected by the rebellion." Be prepared, as in Texas v. White, to deal with the assertion that court cases made after 1860 are invalid upon the traitor states, but it may prove useful against apologists who do not go that far.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2016-05-21 01:43pm

Not primary source documentation, but a well-reasoned argument meant to get at the states' rights/right of revolution justification for the Confederacy. How Libertarians Ought to Think About the U.S. Civil War.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2017-01-01 12:07pm

It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2019-02-23 10:33pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
2011-02-11 08:26am
Southern Unionists, 1850-51
This essay was taken down; an archive is here.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2019-11-10 07:09pm

I recently ran into this essay, entitled "Exploring the legality of southern secession at the start of the US Civil War." Being bored, I decided to write the author, sending him this:
I have just read your essay, "The Legality of Secession," and feel several things should be brought to your attention.

You make several factually incorrect statements in the course of the paper, starting with the statement that the reasons for secession are barely mentioned in general overview of the war, which ceases to be true above the high school level, and the idea that slavery was rarely mentioned at the outset of the war. Several states, notably South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia, published Declarations of Causes outlining why they had taken the step of secession. They one and all named threats to slavery as their primary motivator, with Texas throwing in that the federal government wasn't killing the Natives enough to suit them.

Second, the South was poorer than the North on average, but that average included slaves and subsistence farmers. In total valuated assets, the Slave Power was insanely wealthy. The combined value of the slaves held alone was more valuable than every railroad line laid in the country; the secession convention of Mississippi, in their Declaration of Causes cited above, estimated the value of the South's slaves at four billion dollars, compared to the $1.8 billion of combined railroad stock and bond valuations in 1860.

Third, economic interests motivated the Slave Power much more than the Union. Again, even by conservative estimates the value of the slaves alone was $2 billion with Mississippi's official estimate actually double that. Further, the tariff rates in 1860 were at their lowest level in decades. The idea that the tariff was an economic motivator in 1860 when it was not in 1846 is laughable.

Fourth, suspension of habeus corpus is constitutionally permissible in times of rebellion or invasion, and the country was definitely in the midst of the latter.

And finally, I spent the whole paper waiting for you to name the legal mechanism of secession that you assert exists at the top, but it never came apart from an off-handed reference to Amendment X.

For your edification, the constitutional arguments against secession.

First, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: "[Congress shall have power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

If defiance of the law and insurrection are legal, why does the Constitution provide for the use of military force to prevent them?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 2: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

That "unless" is extremely important.

You cited Article I, Section 10, so I will not reproduce it here.

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

What, exactly, was the Confederacy doing if not these things? And if these things are allowed, why is it the only Constitutionally defined crime?

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States..."

That's the kicker. Nothing in the Constitution may be read to prejudice the claims of the United States. Amendment X is in the Constitution, therefore it may not be read to prejudice the claims of the United States. You need to find a new argument. You won't find it in the writings of the Confederate states, because they didn't bother with the niceties of legality; they simply called conventions and voted themselves out without reference to the Constitution.

And lest we forget, the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, Clause 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If you wrote this for a high level university course, as suggested by the reference to HIST 552 at the top, I suggest revision. Your professor is unlikely to look kindly on this effort.
I don't anticipate much to come of it and if he's inclined to argue I'm not going to carry on a protracted debate in private (no benefit comes of that), but we shall see.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2020-03-24 11:46pm

Jefferson Davis' speech to the Mississippi State Democratic Convention of 1859. I just digitized this myself from a scan of the August 31, 1859 edition of the New York Daily Tribune. The man could talk, enough so to exceed the character limit, so this will have to be split into two posts. I'll break it up by topic; the first part outlines his thoughts on slavery and the second his thoughts on the acquisition of Cuba.
Jefferson Davis wrote:My friends: Again it has been granted to me to mingle with you in the periodical reunion of our political family; again to look upon the well-remembered faces associated with the memory of so many struggles for the cause of Democracy, sacred to us as the cause of truth and of our country.

Accustomed, as a Representative of the State, most frequently to address those who listen with purpose to controvert, if not to misinterpret, it is a grateful privilege to exchange opinions with those who have a common sympathy and from whose opposition one can but expect the correction of error, until final agreement is reached by the establishment of truth.

The occasion, the circumstances, and the heady greeting with which you welcome me home, bring to me such joy as the mariner may feel, when, his trials ended, his doubts and fears are resolved by seeing the smoke of his own cottage and the shadows of the trees which speak to his heart of affection and rest.

The purpose for which we were assembled has been achieved, and we are about to disperse each and all in their appropriate sphere to labor for the common good. You have chosen our standard bearers not for their own, but for the public interest - for Democracy regards Government as the property of the people, and recognizes no proscriptive right to office. You have met the issues of the day as becomes a party whose characteristics are stability and progress. While the world is changing, and new relations, material and moral, are the result, you cannot stereotype a form of expression for your opinions; neither can the principles which are eternal and of universal application, be too often reasserted. To stand still, or to walk with retroverted eyes, would ill become the genius of our age, and still less the condition of our country. It is ours to deal with the present, and look to the future, and it is only by walking out from the shadows of the past that its lights become available to our onward course. By the bold encounter of power and the arraignment of precedent, all the great victories have been won. The history of our predecessors furnishes both incentive and a chart.

Had the listened to the counsel of "conservatism," and in view of the hazards of expansion and the mingling of different nations and languages in our Confederacy, Louisiana, and Florida, and California, had not been of us. Had they shrunk from the conflict with which monarchy threatened republicanism, the time-honored policy of "no entangling alliances" had not remained to us, but in lieu of it, we should have been under treaty stipulation forbidding us in any event to acquire the Island of Cuba. Your duty is twofold - your responsibility is immeasurable. It is yours to maintain the Constitution, and to adapt it to the changes of time and of circumstance, that the purposes for which it was ordained may be realized by ourselves and posterity; it is yours to develop the institutions we inherited, to their greatest capacity; and your responsibility embraces all the hopes which depend upon the demonstration of man's capacity for self government.

For more than fifty years have Democratic principles prevailed in the administration of our Government. The fame, the prosperity, the growth and happiness of our country, attest the adaptation of our theory to a confederation of Free and Sovereign States. We have pride in the past, we have zeal for the present, way we not have hope for the future?

If I use the form of interrogation, it is not because I am prone to despair of the Republic, but because we are necessarily cognizant of the fact that the unity of the people of the States is disturbed by a sectional, fanatical hostility, as irrational as it is vicious. However well it may serve to fan the flame of local excitement, and to promote the personal ambition of an aspirant, the idea of incompatibility for the purposes of our Union because of different systems of labor in the States, is palpably absurd, and would be suicidal if the purpose avowed were attainable. Though the defense of African Slavery (thus it is commonly called) is left to the South, the North are jointly benefited by it. Deduct from their trade and manufactures all which is dependent upon the products of slave labor, their prosperity would fade, and poverty would come upon them "as one that traveleth." Our fathers wisely saw harmony in diversity, and mutuality in the opposite character of the climate, population, and pursuits of the people in the different States. But to them the proposition was far less apparent than it is to us. A vast expansion of territory and the addition to the list of its productions of the great staples of our country's exports, have given to free trade between the States a value which could not have been fully anticipated. All of the necessities, and nearly all of the luxuries of life, are now produced within the limits of the United States, and exchanged for each other without other charge than the cost of transportation. The day, I hope, is not distant, when by the acquisition of tropical territory, we shall complete the circle of products.

What but fatuity could cause a commercial manufacturing people to overlook their advantage in such a relation as that which exists between the North and the South? Ours is an agricultural people, blessed with a fruitful soil and a genial climate; the elements unite with man to render his labor profitable. We have, under these circumstances, no inducement to engage in a general competition with those who, for want of land and by rigor of climate find in the workshops their only industrial employment. Stimulated by class legislation, and aided by taxes indirectly wrung from other pursuits, it has had a further extension than this - but I speak of its just and normal condition - such as will exist when, under the operation of equal laws, no other Federal tax shall be imposed upon the citizen than that which is necessary to enable the General Government to perform its delegated functions. That errors of theory and practice should occur in the administration of a system of government as novel and complex as ours, should not excite surprise; and the facility with which reform has from time to time been introduced, proves how complete are the compensating advantages of our new system. Errors of judgment, or from want of information, cannot destroy the principles of our Government, and of such it was truly said "they are never dangerous while reason is left free to combat them."

It is, however, otherwise when division is made on a geographical basis; and it has been our fortune to witness this last worst phase of political division. A party too powerful to be unheeded, and marked as nations are distinguished, by territorial limits, is now organized for the destruction of the labor system of the South, and seeks to obtain possession of the General Government that its machinery may be used in aid of their war upon our existence as a sovereign State.

Such would be the consequence of success in the nefarious object the pursuit of which they avow. Their movement has no longer the character of speculative philosophy. It is not the political division of a people because of different opinions upon matters of joint interest; but is in the nature of a foreign war waged for conquest and dominion.

So far as the abstract right to hold the African in bondage is concerned, we have cause to congratulate ourselves on the progress which within the last ten years truth and sound philosophy have made.

Anterior to that time it had been the habit of Southern men to refuse to discuss a question of strictly domestic concernment with those who assumed to invade it. Thus, for a long period, error scattered her seeds broadcast over the land, while reason, in over confidence, stood passive. The recent free discussion by the press, and on the forum, have dispelled delusions which had obscured the mind of a generation until even among ourselves it was more easy to find the apologist than the defender. The case is now so far reversed, that many Northern men have addressed themselves to the task of defending our constitutional rights, on the ground of their justice; and there is not probably an intelligent mind among our own citizens who doubts either the moral or the legal right of the institution of African Slavery as it exists in our country.

It is not a little curious to note the fluctuations of English and American, of Northern and of Southern opinion, upon this subject.

During the colonial condition, Great Britain not only protected the slave-trade, but denied to the Colonies the right to prohibit the importation of negro slaves into their respective territory. Now she is the source of an agitation against the United States, because the descendants of the negroes so imported are held in bondage.

The Northern States once held slaves, and their acts of emancipation generally followed the transfer of the property to the Southern States; their people engaged in the importation of African slaves, and now persecute the South, though holding by purchase from them; and the sons of those who conducted the trade would throw upon us the task of defending their fathers from the charge of having been pirates and man-stealers.

It is not unfrequently asserted, and it has been effective in creating a prejudice against us, that slaveholders exercised an undue influence in the affairs of the General Government, as shown by the fact that their property had been specially favored by legislation. If the statement be innocently made it is surely erroneous, as a glance at our history will show it has been the subject of peculiar inhibition and obstruction, and has received less than the ordinary amount of protection by Government. In 1787, when Virginia, in a spirit of generosity, and to promote the formation of the Union, had ceded to the north-west, territory sufficient in extent and natural capacity for an empire, the Congress of the Confederation assumed to set the seal of its disapprobation on the institution of Slavery by excluding it from all of that vast domain.

In the Convention which formed the Constitution, the opponents of African servitude, after having vainly sought for the General Government the power to prohibit the importation of slaves, succeeded in inserting a clause which has been construed as declaring such prohibition after 1808. In 1818, the Congress enacted a law which fixed penalties upon the importation of negro slaves, of such magnitude as exhibits not the purpose to exercise the power of commercial regulation, but to prohibit it as a species of commerce which should be destroyed. In 1820, the Congress, as the condition of admitting a slaveholding State, carved out of territory to which by treaty were secured all the rights of person and property, prohibited the continuance of involuntary servitude in all that portion of the territory which lay exterior to and north of the State then admitted. Call they it favor when the price demanded and paid for the enjoyment of an indisputable political right was the surrender of a right of property equally unquestionable, both resting on the basis of the Constitution, and fortified by the specific obligations of the treaty with France for the acquisition of the territory?

In the same year, a period prolific of departures from the principles of our Government, the Congress, by legislative act, declared the slave-trade to be piracy, thus not only withholding from an American citizen who should engage in this trade the protection of his Government, but withdrawing from him the right to be tried under the laws and by the courts of his own land; pronounced him the enemy of mankind, and abandoned him to the mercy of whomsoever should capture him.

This law is not to be confounded with that of 1818. They differ essentially in their effect; their policy, and the authority which must be relied on to maintain their validity. From the power to regulate commerce, to conduct foreign intercourse, and to establish rules of naturalization, much may be drawn in relation to the migration or importation of persons. I am not prepared to deny that it may not extend to exclusion, yet as a general rule it would be more consonant with the genius of our Government and the rights of the States to leave the subject to the control of the several States, as a domestic interest, which each community can best decide for itself. There are few, if any, among us, who would admit that the General Government possesses that power to authorize the importation into a State of persons to whom admission was forbidden by the laws of that State. In this connection it deserves to be remembered that upon this point arose the early controversy between the State of Virginia and the General Government, and it will also be remembered that if viewed simply as a question of commerce, the Congress have no greater power over the foreign, than over the inter-State trade.

But how stands the case in relation to the act of 1820, declaring the slave trade to be piracy? From what clause of the Constitution is the authority for that act derived? It is commonly assigned, and I know of no other source, to the grant of power "to define and punish piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations." To "define" is not to create or to give a new meaning; and to punish offenses against the law of nations is not authority to introduce a new article into the code. Conceding the power for justifiable reasons to exclude the importation of a particular class of persons, authority surely cannot be thence deduced to assume control over the trade of other nations, and by a police of the seas to destroy a trade between two foreign nations which is recognized by the laws of both, or to brand as nefarious a traffic which has existed from the earliest period of human history, and been conducted by nations which have most illustrated the annals of man. So great a departure from well-established policy and obvious principle suggests the inquiry by whom and for what purpose was it made? I have been satisfied that it was one of those departures which result from substituting a temporary expediency for immutable truth.

After the termination of the general wars which prevailed in the early part of this century, roving and adventurous men, accustomed to the hazards of military life, were thrown out of employment, and every sea on which there was the temptation of commerce became infested with pirates. Expelled elsewhere, they at last made a lodgment in the West Indies. About the time of the treaty for the transfer of Florida to the United States, an organized band seized the Island of Fernandina, and assumed to exercise dominion over it. They were understood to be pirates generally, and to be engaged in the slave-trade particularly. President Madison sent an expedition of naval and land forces to take possession of the island, and the Congress of the next year (1820) passed the act which declares the slave-trade to be piracy. There is reason to believe that this was done, not in hostility to slave property, but to the pirates who had engaged in the trade. The previous law had interdicted the importation into the United States, and there was no doubt also a purpose by the act of 1820 to render the prohibition of 1818 more effectual.

If considerations of public safety of interest warranted the termination of the trade, they could not justify the Government in branding as infamous the source from which the chief part of our laboring population was derived.

It is this feature of the law which makes it offensive to us, and stimulates us to strive for its repeal. What, let me ask, has been its result? It has magnified the horrors of the middle passage; it has led us to an alliance with Great Britain, by which we are bound to keep a naval squadron on the deadly coast of Africa, where American sailors are sacrificed to a foreign policy, urged under the false plea of humanity; it has destroyed a lucrative trace for ivory, oil, and gold-dust, which our merchants had long conducted with the inhabitants of the coast, and transferred it to our commercial rivals, the British. Truly have we gone "out a-shearing to come home shorn." The manner, as I have been informed, in which our trade has been destroyed, is generally this: An American vessel of the character which engaged in that trade, when boarded by a British cruiser on the coast of Africa, if she shows the flag and papers of an American trader, will be turned over to a vessel of our squadron and probably be sent home for trial as pirates, but if her flag and papers are thrown overboard, then, the slave-trade not being piracy by the law of nations (notwithstanding war statute), the vessel is held as the prize of her captors, and the officers and crew are discharged. A recent instance has occurred in which a vessel sent home for trial was discharged on the ground that the circumstances did not warrant the conclusion that she visited the coast of Africa to engage in the slave-trade.

My friend Senator Clay of Alabama (his services entitle him to the friendship of the South), as Chairman of the Committee of Commerce, instituted, at the last session of Congress, an inquiry into the facts connected with the maintenance of our squadron on the coast of Africa, and I hope his energy and ability may lead to the annulment of a treaty which has been productive only of evil.

Before leaving this question it may be proper to notice the fact that the argument drawn from the language of the Constitution, that it's framers understood the Government to have power to prohibit the trade and only restricted for a time its exercise, is subject to all the deductions made by the amendments to the instrument, and the mode of its exercise to all the restrictions contained in it. The broad and earliest distinction between the Federalists and the Republicans, was that the former were for the Constitution as formed, and the latter for the Constitution as amended. Indeed, we have reason to believe that but for the assurance that amendments would be adopted, the Republicans would have rejected the Constitution. One of these amendments declared that the powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, were reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It is under this clause that we have claimed the duty of the General Government to show a specific grant for every power it assumes to exercise, and have required that laws should be needful and proper to the performance of the function, each being the defined purpose of the grant of legislative power. Another of those amendments restrains the General Government from imposing excessive fines or inflicting cruel and unusual punishments.

If I have succeeded in showing that the act of 1820 was not authorized by any express grant of the Constitution, the first amendment cited is sufficient; but if I have failed in this, does not the second amendment stand in bar of that enactment? A decision of this question by the Supreme Court, might, if possible render doubly absurd the rant of those who term an infraction of that statute treason, and thus commit, no piracy, but "murder of the king's English."

Regarding the slave trade as sanctioned by the immemorial usage of mankind, as a commerce recognized by the Constitution, but which, from motives of internal policy, it was thought proper to prohibit, and conceding that sufficient power for that purpose existed in the General Government, it may well be asked whether the fine of the act of 1818 is not excessive - whether the penalty of both fine and imprisonment does not so far exceed the offense as, at least, to be impolitic. In our land of liberty and jury trials, laws, to be efficient, must not violate the settled, well-considered public opinion, nor go so far between the legitimate object as to wear the semblance of vindictive pursuit, lest they thus excite the heart of a generous people to sympathy with the offender. It will be a sad day for our Government, and for the public morals, when unwise legislation shall drive Juries to the practical nullification of laws.

I have said that I would prefer to leave the subject of the importation of African slaves to the States respectively; but, viewing it as utterly impracticable to obtain the repeal of the act of 1818, so as to reopen the African slave-trade, it is perhaps needless to speak of the case which would arise in such contingency. Yet, as my purpose if the freest interchange of opinions, I will say that in such event, the State being left free from any Congressional intervention on the subject, my policy would be to maintain the existing law of Mississippi, which was designed, and would no doubt be effective, to prevent the importation of Africans into the limits of our State. Let no one, however, suppose that this indicates any coincidence of opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the trade. No consequences which would justify such denunciation can flow from the transfer of a slave from a savage to a Christian master. It is not the interest of the African, but of Mississippi, which dictates my conclusion. Her place in history, her rank among the States, her power to maintain constitutional and natural rights, depend upon her people - the free, intelligent, high-minded sons of the governing race.

Her arm is no doubt strengthened by the presence of a due proportion of the servile caste, but it might be paralyzed by such an influx as would probably follow if the gates of the African slave-market were thrown open to the present wealth, enterprise, and ample stimulants of the State. I would prefer a policy which would promote the more equal distribution of those we now have.

This conclusion in relation to Mississippi, is based upon my view of her present condition, not upon any general theory. For instance, it is not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New-Mexico, or to any future acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande.

All of these countries which can only be developed by slave labor in some of its forms, and which, with a sufficient supply of African slaves, would be made tributary to the great mission of the United States, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and to establish peace and free trade with all mankind.

The demand for cotton increases more rapidly than the supply. A freer trade with China, adding the consumption of which her three hundred millions of people are capable, will, in a few years, require an increase of production, which can only be met by an additional supply of laborers. Where are they to be obtained? If Negropholism seeks to substitute the China or India man for the African, it will but neglect the lessons of experience, and uselessly repeat the cruelties for the suppression of which the African was originally imported into America. I am stating on this subject facts familiar to you, conclusions confirmed by your everyday observation, but which are denied by those who are not practically acquainted with the cultivation of our staples, the influences of the climate suited to their growth, or the characteristics of the negro race, and continue to assert that our system of labor is unnecessary, because those crops could as well be produced by white and free negro laborers. What can better show their unfitness to legislate on this subject of domestic interest? What more fully justify the propriety of leaving the importation of laborers to be regulated by State legislation, according to a policy to be determined by those who can best understand it, and on whom its consequences must fall?

With this general indication of my view, I leave this branch of the subject to the time when, if ever, it may become a practical question, and then will discuss it with those true friends of the South who differ from me, with the respect which I have for their judgment, the confidence I have in their honorable motives, and the diffidence with which I would on any occasion oppose my opinion to theirs.

It was said of the members of a once powerful family which gave kings to Europe, that they "learned nothing and forgot nothing." If we credit the anti-slavery agitators with sincerity, such would seem to be their condition. Though investigation and experiment have disproved the assertions and refuted the theories on which their movement commenced, they neither learn the correction nor forget exploded errors unsubstantially founded upon the popular phrases which they have brought into disrepute by constant misapplication. A declaration of rights made by bodies politic is construed as an essay upon the individual relations of man to man. Arguing to their own satisfaction for the unity in origin of the races of man, they draw thence the conclusion of his present equality. If the premises be correct, the conclusion is surely a non sequitur, and the student of facts as they exist in our time will not be disturbed in his inquiries. As to him, it matters not whether Almighty power and wisdom stamped diversity on the races of men at the period of the creation, or decreed it after the subsidence of the flood. It is enough for us that the Creator, speaking through the inspired lips of Noah, declared the destiny of the three races of men. Around and about us is the remarkable fulfillment of the prophecy, the execution of the decree, and the justification of our literal construction of the text.

The judgments of God are not as those of men. To the former all things are accommodated, and the fate of the subject is thereby his nature, but the victim of man's decree rebels and struggles against his condition.

When the Spaniards discovered this continent and reduced the sons of Shem to bondage, unsuited to that condition they pined and rapidly wasted away in unproductive labor. The good Bishop Las Casas with philosophical humanity inaugurated the importation of the race of Ham; they came to relieve from an unnatural state the dwellers in tents, and to fulfill their own destiny, that of being the "servant of servants." In their normal condition, they thrived and by their labor the land was subdued and made fruitful. The West India Islands became marvels for their productiveness and so continued until man assuming to reverse the working of nature's laws gave to the black a boon he could utilize or estimate save as it brought to him slothful or vicious indulgence, and thus remanding him to barbarism robbed him of the plenty, the comfort, and the civilization with which in servitude he was blessed. Reckless, indeed, must that man be who in the face of the results which have followed negro emancipation in the West Indies and Hispano America would seek under similar circumstances to repeat the experiment.

It is a common and natural mistake to attribute to others the sentiments and feelings which move ourselves, but this is only excusable as the basis of political action, in the absence of more reliable data. The history of man traced back to the period which has left none other than pictorial records, exhibits the negro in all times as the subservient race. No where has he shown capacity to found civil government. At no time has he asserted his equality by separating himself from the master race, to establish an independent community of his own. In the Northern States, where a false sentiment has prevailed, and the greatest efforts have been made by enthusiasts to raise the negro to social equality, he is still subjected to such odious discriminations, as persons fit to be free would not for a day voluntarily endure. For far less cause the Puritans embarked for the inhospitable shores of New England, and the Huguenots penetrated the swamps of Carolina, with no sustaining hand to aid and to guide them. The world bears witness to the triumphs which both have achieved.

How stands the case of the negro, in the non-slaveholding States? Free to go in advance of settlement, into the wilderness of the West, and there to found a colony of their own, exempt from the inferiority they must ever experience while in contact with the white man, they have continued to hang about the towns and cities, and generally to gain their subsistence by menial service to the white race.

But speculative philanthropy imagined that if a colony were established in the land of his forefathers, the African would there exhibit his capacity for self-government. With this view, in 1816, a Colonization Society was formed. Its purpose was the transfer of the free blacks from the United States to the coast of Africa, and the benign promise was the diffusion among their barbarian brethren of the civilization and Christianity which these colonists had acquired through servitude in America.

The experiment was made under the most favorable circumstances. The colonists had been trained to industry and order, and were, it must be inferred from the circumstances, of the best class of their race. The Society embraced in its lists of members many of the first men of our country, and the zeal with which their purpose was pursued would have won success if it had been attainable. Munificent donations by individuals, liberal aid by the churches, heavy expenditures by the general Government have buoyed this colony up from its infancy to the present day. What have been the results? Upon the authority of a seemingly friendly and fair writer giving an account of Liberia as he found it, it appears that in 1858, the whole population was less than the number of emigrants by thirty-three percent. That they have few domestic animals; that the great body of the Liberians do not obtain a supply of animal food sufficient for daily use, that in a country well suited to agriculture more than half of the inhabitants are living on quarter-acre lots; that the natives or wild Africans do the work of beasts of burden; that the colonists import a large part of their subsistence which is paid for by trade with the natives, toward whom no feeling of common brotherhood is evinced; that Liberia called in all gravity a Republic "may be said to live by the labor(and on the alms) of foreigners."

Is it kindness, is it charity, is it sound policy, to transfer a useful and happy body of laborers from the protection of our laws, and the benefit of our civilization, that they may possess a liberty they cannot enjoy, suffer a privation for which to them no political privilege is an adequate compensation, and finally when left to themselves lapse into the barbarism of their ancestors? If to this view, it is objected that the reasoning does not embrace the condition of those who have a worthless population of free negroes among them, I can only reply that the difference of view depends upon the stand-point, and that such answer to my argument vindicates our institution of African bondage from the assaults which have been made upon it, by proving that the good of society requires that the negro should be kept in his normal condition.

A British Minister to the United States, when some years since writing to an agent in Central America, said that Slavery constituted the only question in the politics of the United States. It was and is, most unfortunately, near to the truth. The seed sent out from Exeter Hall found congenial soil in the Northern States, and has produced embarrassments and controversies more fatal to the peace and progress of the United States than would have been a quadrennial war with a foreign power.

In your resolutions you have asserted the right to protection by the General Government, for the property of citizens of the several States who may settle on the common domain, the territory of the United States. As a consequence of the equality of the States, and the correlation of allegiance and protection, your proposition would seem too clear for argument.

Nor, indeed, has it been denied, except in view of the performance of the duty toward one kind of property, and it is hazarding little to foretell that your resolution, though general in its terms, will be construed as having a single application to property in slaves.

Thus a like proposition was treated in the Congressional debate of 1850 on the so-called compromise measures. It is not my purpose to review generally the objections heretofore stated to that legislation. Mississippi decided to acquiesce in it, and her judgment was final on her citizens to the extent of all which was a matter of volition. Opinion is not the creature of will, and mine remains unchanged, though my action has conformed to my allegiance.

I will merely refer to that part of the legislation which specially bears upon the subject now under consideration.

In the bill reported for the organization of the Territory of New-Mexico, there was a general grant of legislative power, with a reservation that no law should be passed "in respect to African Slavery." Believing that this was an inhibition against the enactment by the Territorial Legislature of any law for the protection of that species of property, and but too fully apprized that the reservation was not made with intent to afford such protection by Congressional enactment, I proposed to amend the bill by striking out the restraint against legislation "in respect to African Slavery," and inserting a prohibition against the enactment of any law which would interfere "with those rights of property growing out of the institution of African Slavery as it exists in any of the States of this Union." In conformity to the views and wishes of some Southern Senators, the amendment was several times modified so as finally to present the general proposition that the Territorial Legislature should not be prevented from passing the laws necessary for the protection of the rights of property of every kind which might be legally and constitutionally held in that Territory. In this general form the proposition was brought to a vote, and defeated. Was it veneration for the decree of a Mexican Dictator which withheld and acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Constitution, or was it hate of the South, which caused a majority thus tenaciously to preserve the decree of a Government which obstructed the equal enjoyment by all citizens of the United States of the property held by joint tenure, and won by their common toil, blood, and treasure?

At a subsequent period, the bill was amended, on the motion of Mr. Berrien of Georgia, by striking out the words "in respect to African Slavery," and inserting a provision to restrain the Territorial Legislature from "establishing or prohibiting African Slavery." In that dark period for Southern rights, we should not probably have gained even that much, but for the conviction on the part of the majority that slave property was sufficiently excluded by the "lex loci" of Mexico, and would require legislation to establish it.

Though defeated on that occasion, Southern rights gained much by the discussion. The victory of error is but for a day; the vigor of truth is eternal.

When the same question arose again in 1854, on the bill for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, the original draft was modified so as to declare that the Constitution should have the same force and effect in these Territories as elsewhere in the United States, and the obstruction to the enjoyment in that Territory of equal rights by the citizens of the Southern States, known as the Missouri Compromise, was swept from the statute book, which was the legitimate consequence of the refusal to extend that line to the Pacific through the Territories acquired from Mexico. What were our constitutional rights in the Territories, remained an open question, being designedly left for judicial decision.

Thanks to the care of our fathers for the rights of minorities, an umpire was provided for such controversies, which, removed from the influence of popular excitement, and the power of political parties, was left free to discriminate between truth and error, and without fear or favor, to do justice. That umpire has decided the issue in our favor, and, though placemen may evade, and fanatics rail, the judgment stands the rule of right, and claims the respect and obedience of every citizen of the United States.

But now, when the matter in controversy which has so long impeded and prevented the action of Congress has been finally decided according to the provisions of our fundamental law, there are those who seek to revive the controversy by indirection and deny the obligation of the General Government to give efficacy to constitutional rights which have been established beyond the limits of legitimate denial. What could be meaner than the reply to our demand for adequate protection - though you have gained the suit in the issue we joined and in the matter agreed upon, yet we cannot consent that you should have whatever remedies are needful to secure the future enjoyment of the right you have established!

The Government which withholds all practicable and rightful protection to its citizens forfeits its claim to allegiance and support. To establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defense, were the great purposes for which our Union was formed. It was in the discharge of these great duties, which he who swears to defend the Constitution may find declared in its preamble, that we waged the war of 1812. To protect our merchantmen from detention and search upon the high seas, and to defend our citizens, native and naturalized, from imprisonment, we inscribed on our banner "Free Trade and Sailors' Rights," and all unprepared as we were, threw the wager of battle to the mistress of the seas.

In your resolutions, you have well denied that we are estopped from demanding protection by acquiescence in the doctrine of non-intervention with the institution of Slavery in the States, Territories, or District of Columbia. I will not undertake to define the new doctrine of "non-intervention;" shadowy and variable, it may be classed with what a preacher termed the third division of his subject, that of which he knew nothing, and which his hearers could not possibly understand. It may be assumed that if the interpretation which you now deny had been sent with the proposition to the people of Mississippi, they never would have acquiesced in it.

The doctrine had its origin in worthy motives, and was used for a good purpose, to check the fanaticism which strove for hostile legislation - what is commonly called the "Wilmot Proviso." Though a feeble barrier, it was, perhaps, not wholly useless, and may have served to gain the time necessary for the people to reflect, and to rally. But he stultifies himself who appeals to the legislation of 1850 to sustain this modern construction, which denies the right of Congress to do anything in relation to slave property, either in the Territories, States, or District of Columbia. Among those measures, called the Compromise, there was one which, on the plea of an unsettled question of boundary, transferred territory from the slaveholding laws of Texas to those of New-Mexico; another to give to the Supreme Court of New-Mexico an appeal in all cases involving titles to slaves, though the amount should not be equal to that which was required in other cases; another to give a more efficacious remedy for the recovery of fugitive slaves found within the limits of the States; another which affixed emancipation of the slave as a penalty upon the owner who should bring him into the District of Columbia, and there keep him, with intent to sell him at some future time, and at some other place. It needed not this recent evasion to make me feel the offense of the last-cited act. In other times and places I have said hard and thought harder things of those who thus outraged our equality in the neutral territory ceded for the seat of a common Government. From such non-intervention we might pray to be delivered.

If the question were fairly submitted to the intelligent minds in any portion of our country, Shall the General Government have the means which will enable it to give adequate protection to the person and property of American citizens on the high seas, and wherever on land it has jurisdiction, I will not doubt what the answer would be. And this confidence is felt even by those who adopt delusive phrases to excite to prejudice; such as the adoption "of a slave code by Congress, to force Slavery on an unwilling people," and others as unfounded in fact.

Our assertion of a right to protection does not necessarily involve the enactment of additional laws, nor would any laws give security, unless they were honestly administered.

The position so long held by the South, that the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, extended to the Territories, and as it recognized property in slaves, so authorized their introduction into the Territories - the common domain of the United States, has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The decree of public - not municipal - law which inhibited Slavery in all the territory acquired from Mexico was therefore repealed by its transfer to the jurisdiction of the United States; but, if the rules of proceeding remain unchanged, then all the remedies of the civil law would be available for the protection of property in slaves, or if the language of the organic act, by specifying chancery and common law jurisdiction, denies to us the more ample remedies of the civil law, then those known to the common law are certainly in force; and these, I have been assured by the highest authority, will be found sufficient. If this be so, then we are content. If it should prove otherwise, then we but ask what justice cannot deny; the legislation needful to enable the General Government to perform its legitimate functions; and in the mean time we deny the power of Congress to abridge or destroy our constitutional rights, or of the Territorial Legislature to obstruct the common law of the United States.

If this be the position which it is sought to render odious by charging us with a wish to obtain from Congress the enactment of "a slave code," the abuse of language is palpable; but if be intended by the use of that phrase to ascribe to us a purpose to ask of Congress the formation of police regulations for slaves in the Territories; by general law to regulate patrols, passes, treatment, and general discipline of slaves, you know it to be utterly unfounded and must deem it absurd.

It has been so long the habit to speak of African Slavery as an evil only to be excused because forced upon us, and now irremediable - so many well-meaning persons have confounded the policy of other times and circumstances with the obligations of morality, that it has come to pass that our property in the labor of Africans is regarded as an exception to the general obligation of the Government to protect; and hence the laws which have been enacted to restrain within prescribed limits a property which, by recognition of the Constitution, was placed upon the same footing throughout the United States as other property, the right to hold which is everywhere recognized by the common usage of mankind. We have been sometimes reminded that the word "Slavery" is not to be found in the Constitution, and it has been assumed to be evidence of hostility to that tenure of labor which is so denominated. A most illogical conclusion, in view of the fact that the Constitution treats of that condition not only as an existing right of property, but as an element in the future basis of representation in the General Government. A more rational deduction, from the avoidance of the term in an instrument so remarkable for the accuracy of the language employed, would be that the word was considered a misnomer. If to restrain the vagrant, the vicious, and the incompetent, the possession of liberty by whom would be dangerous to society and injurious to themselves, be Slavery, then all civil government might be arraigned for having established that condition, and from the work-houses, the penitentiaries, the reform-schools, and the asylums, a cloud of degraded and unfortunate witnesses could be brought to sustain the arraignment. But if it be said these were incarcerated after being adjudged to be lunatics, or for crimes whereof they had been duly convicted, may we not ask if it be philanthropy to expose a race, known to be unfit to take care of themselves, to trials beneath which they must generally sink, that in the fullness of time, and after being duly adjudged, they may end their days in the prison or the mad-house.

In each case the good of society is the object, and the justification is to be found in the adaptation of the means to the end. The difference of rule results from the different capacities of the races; the exceptions in the one being those who are unfit for self-government; the exceptions in the other being those who are fit to be free.

It would be easy to show that our system for the control of an incompetent caste is in every respect better than would be a system of work-houses, public-labor farms or reform-schools, as the permanent connection and interest of the master must induce to a discipline more parental than would be that of the constable or superintendent having but a temporary and official relation.

But I have already dwelt so long upon this subject that it may be asked why thus fully discuss questions on which there can be no difference in conclusion between myself and those whom I address? To such inquiry my answer would be, we have need not only to be assured to be justified, and it is a duty we owe to our ancestors, to ourselves, and to posterity to vindicate our institutions from unjust reproach. To be right both in conscience and in the estimation of others is to be strong. From the time when, in vain reliance on the strength which unity of people and of language gave, impious man attempted on the plain of Shinar to defy the power of his Creator and was confounded and dispersed, never has there been any permanent prosperity which did not rest on the basis of virtue. What then is more befitting a fraternal conference like this, than the freest examination of the truths on which we rest our defense before the tribunal of posterity, and claim the alliance of the patriotic and the just of our own generation?

In the maintenance of our rights and the vindication of our institutions the most unequal contests are in the United States House of Representatives, and we have cause to congratulate ourselves on the ability, the fidelity and harmonious cooperation of our members.

Undaunted by numbers, unmoved by the personal considerations so productive of defection, they have met every issue as became Mississippians. Could I say more?
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2020-03-24 11:47pm

Jefferson Davis wrote:Your resolution in favor of the acquisition of Cuba is a gratifying indorsement of the position which your delegation in Congress has taken. It is placed on the ground of a commercial and political necessity, which in the event of its transfer to any foreign power would become absolute - a consideration as broad as the Union, a motive as free from sectional or partisan taint as the spirit in which the Constitution was ordained and established. Untruly it has been argued that the annexation of Cuba is sought for the exclusive benefit of the South; but if it were so, and it could not be shown that our advantage would be the injury of other portions of the Union, how could the fact justify opposition, if we remain what our fathers left us - people united for the common welfare.

Before proceeding to the consideration of the subject in the national aspect in which you have presented it, permit me briefly to notice it in its sectional relation. And here let me say I have no word of unkind criticism for those Southern men who oppose the acquisition from the belief that it would be injurious to our section. There is much force in the objection that the abolition of the slave-trade as the consequence of annexation, and the greater profits from slave labor in the island than in the more northern of the slave-holding States, would lead to such sale and transfer to the island as would soon render those States non slave-holding, and that thus our political power in the Union would be diminished.

The question of acquisition has to us three phases. The first belongs to the condition of harmony among the States and the people, which would insure a fair administration by the General Government of all its delegated powers, and a due regard for all our constitutional rights; to that case the balance-of-power argument would not apply, as it presupposes a case in which a sectional division could not exist. The second is that of continuance in bickering and sectional strife, so that the Government shall be rendered unable to perform its proper functions and be driven onward by an aggressive majority to interference in things with which it has no rightful connection. In that case any loss of political power which would serve to restrain from usurpation must surely be deprecated. But the end, regret it as we may, the inevitable end of continuance in such hostility between the States must be their separation. This brings me to the third and last phase of the question - the importance of the Island of Cuba to the Southern States if formed into a separate confederacy. The commercial considerations in this would probably be less important than in the first phase of the question, but the political necessity would be paramount, and the possession would be indispensable.

Viewed in its various relations to our section, I reach the conclusion that from the acquisition of Cuba the South has no injury to apprehend which should deter her from using all proper means for its accomplishment. What means may be proper will depend upon circumstances as they arise. But here let me say no acquisition, however desirable, could induce me to consent to see the bright escutcheon of the United States tarnished by one act of rapine. What American does not feel proud of his ability to point to the record of our national existence as not containing a page on which is recorded a war waged for aggrandizement, a town sacked or given to pillage, or of all our vast acquisition of territory one acre which is held by the title of conquest? Whatever our future necessities may exact, or coming eventualities justify, posterity cannot fail to approve the forbearance of the United States in leaving so long and under so many provocations a weak and distant Government in possession of the gate which commands the great Valley of the Mississippi, destined to be, if it has not already become, the center of agricultural empire, and the source of our most valuable exports.

It will be remembered that at the last session of Congress the President recommended the acquisition of Cuba, and a bill was introduced into the Senate to appropriate thirty millions of dollars in aid of that object. It is to be regretted that the vote was not taken on the bill; there is little doubt that after some amendment it would have passed the Senate, and though it should not have been acted on in the House, the moral effect of its passage by the treaty ratifying body would greatly have fortified the executive power of negotiation.

The Opposition as usual inveighed against Slavery, and assumed that its extension was the object of the proposed acquisition. Seldom have the advantages of a great measure been so general and so equally balanced between the sections, the pecuniary benefits being almost exclusively to the North.

That the presence of slaves in the island made it more desirable to me, I will not deny. The cultivation of the island requires African labor, and the African as a rule will only work in the condition of servitude. Thus the presence of slaves increases the value of the island, and so much the more as the number in the United States would not enable us to supply the requisite amount of labor. It was also true as one of the minority section that I desired to increase the number of slaveholding constituencies, but so far from its being the only object, the measure rested on other and distinct grounds.

Some also objected to the incorporation of people different in race and different in religion; a position which rested upon two fallacies; one that because speaking a different language they were of a different race; and the other than an established religion in the United States made it objectionable to add a population holding another creed.

Much horror was also manifested lest the President should use the appropriation to corrupt the government of Spain. How practicable that may be I will not pretend to judge, but granting the functionaries to be so pure and simple minded as to require the guardianship of our Congress; the long and distinguished service, the high position and character of the President; and the no less eminent and worthy Secretary of State, might have shielded them from such suspicion.

But there is a class of men skillful to a proverb as detectives, and the arraignment of others is a cheap coin in which to pay the debt of integrity.

Were there no uses other than those of bribery to which the money could be applied; were there no contingencies which might make it available; no circumstances in our own government which rendered it needful to give some assurance that a treaty of made would be ratified?

If the war now waged in Italy should involve the rest of Europe, and Spain, as the ally of France, should be brought into contact with England, as the ally of Austria, would there be no power to obtain the sinews of war for a distant colony, which even Spanish pride and obstinacy could not expect under such circumstances to hold? At home we should have an acquisition to make, one which might wake the spirit of the day when the knights of Spain were the noblest of Europe, and their highest prowess was displayed in efforts to free their native land from the yoke of the infidel, a possession the loss of which shades the memory of the brightest achievements of her ancient renown. Gibraltar, one of the pillars of Hercules to the gate of the Mediterranean, was forcibly wrested from Spain more than a century and a half ago. Vainly has she attempted to retake it; and to the mortification of her pride, the detriment of her revenue, and the injury of her commerce and maritime power, the British flag still floats over it. Might she not give an Island the value of which can be measured by money, to obtain the means which would enable her to recover a possession which must be to her priceless?

I have mentioned one, but there are other contingencies and inducements fully set forth in the Ostend Conference. Suffice it to say, I am not of those who consider negotiation hopeless as a means to acquire the island, and of all which can be contemplated, it is, in my judgment, the most proper, both in relation to our own reputation among the nations, and to the future condition of Cuba.

I have said that we did not found our policy as to this acquisition, on considerations of mere sectional advantage. We could not ask the North to aid us in the accomplishment of the measure for such purpose. We would not listen to a counter proposition to acquire Canada, with a view to augment the power of the Northern States; ad we should not expect or claim more than, under like circumstances, we would grant. Neither would our consciences sanction, or the civilized world approve of the seizure of the island merely because we wanted it. Higher motives, stronger reasons must be adduced in the forum of conscience, and before the tribunal of nations. I will not weary you by a recapitulation of the long list, which is familiar to you, of precedents and provocations, but will only refer to the general basis on which the justice of our policy may be defended. To repel invasion, to secure intercourse between the States, and to protect their commerce on the high seas, are duties of the General Government so universally admitted, that the right to employ all lawful means for their fulfillment requires no argument.

It remains, then, but to show that the occupation of Cuba is a necessary measure, and the right to employ for that purpose any of the delegated powers of the General Government follows as a consequence.

The channel of oceanic intercourse between the States of the Atlantic and those of the Gulf of Mexico, flows by and near to the Island of Cuba; and that between these States and those on the Pacific flows close to its Western end. From the Havana and Cape San Antonio, a few gunboats might keep watch and ward over all the vast and increasing commerce which pursues these channels. From the capacious and safe harbor of Havana, a hostile fleet might sail after the sun had set, and ere it rose be upon our coast. To guard against this imminent danger, the massive works of the Tortugas and Key West are now under construction. It is to forget the lessons of experience to hold that the weakness of Spain makes this an idle apprehension. Her weakness is the greatest source of our danger, because it makes her ports assailable to any powerful foe who may choose to use them in violation of the laws of neutrality. To prove this it is only requisite to mention the cases of Fayal and Valparaiso, and the seizure by French cruisers of American vessels in the neutral ports of Spain prior to the year 1800. If it were necessary to demonstrate by past events the importance, indeed the necessity, of the proximate ports of Cuba to a European fleet, making a hostile expedition against us, the descent upon Louisiana, and the more recent bombardment of Vera Cruz would furnish such testimony. It is clear that under such circumstances the neutrality of the ports of Cuba would be the condition most advantageous to the enemy, or, to express it otherwise, injurious to us.

But there is another view in which the weakness of Spain, instead of being an argument to satisfy us with its present condition, is the reverse. It has exposed her to the intrusion of British reformers, threatening to merely to make it like their own Jamaica, unproductive, but to render it a dangerous neighbor to us. In 1841 it was proposed by convention between Great Britain and Spain, to institute a British Commission to inquire into the titles by which the slaves of Cuba were held. In 1843, 1851, and 1853, the proposition was further and regularly pressed upon Spain. In the Spring of the last named year, an agreement was made satisfactory to Great Britain, but with the exact terms of which we have not been made acquainted. It will, however, be remembered that about that time the tripartite treaty between England, France, and Spain was entered into, and that upon the rejection by the Administration of President Pierce of the offer to make our Government a party to it, the British Minister to the United States was instructed by his Government to inform ours that Great Britain would thenceforth consider herself at entire liberty to act on any future occasion as to her might seem fit. If, as some have contended, there was a moral obligation resulting from an understanding between the United States and Great Britain, that they should mutually refrain from seeking to acquire Cuba, that obligation was dissolved by the notice given.

There is still another element in the moral question which remains to be considered. Though it should be shown ever so clearly to be the interest of the United States, and that no obstacle, either of domestic or foreign compact restrained us, still it would devolve upon us, in the absence of an absolute necessity, to show that injury would not be inflicted upon the inhabitants of the island, the other party about to be permanently and immediately affected. Any doubt on that point, it would seem, should have been solved by the standing threat to turn loose the slaves upon the people, by the frequent efforts at revolution, and the admitted necessity for force to maintain the Government, which is contained in the large military establishment, the rigid police regulations of the island, and the extraordinary provisions of the Governor, being at all times those which usually belong only to a state of siege. The natives of the island have no political power, are unrepresented in the Cortes, are excluded from the army and navy, not allowed to bear arms for their own defense, or peaceably to assemble for any purpose. Shut out from the avenues to distinction, the lofty aspiration of the youth must be smothered, as it is the fate of the patriot to stand between expatriation and the garrote, or in secret "o'er the ruin of his country to sigh.”

When the world is banded to sustain prescriptive power against popular privilege, shall not we of the model republic be permitted to sympathize with our neighbors in their struggles for constitutional liberty which, by our example, we have been accused of inciting? Shall we not, when the commerce of the world, the interest of the United States, and that of Cuba, combine to recommend it, be justified in seeking to carry out the most settled policy of the United States, that of expansion? Growth is the attendant of vigorous existence. In nations as in organic bodies, the suspension of that law is the unfailing evidence of decline.

There need be nothing wounding to the pride of Spain in our negotiation. The considerations to be offered would not necessarily be restricted to those of a pecuniary character. We have retaliatory statutes which discriminate against her mercantile marine; these could be abrogated. The trade of her colonies is relied on to sustain her naval power. For one, I would be willing to make her trade with all the ports of the United States as free as the winds and the waves which bear it.

But if all peaceful means should prove unavailing, then, whenever her island is about to become, in the hand of an enemy, dangerous to the United States, or whenever just cause for war shall be given by Spain, I say we should take possession of Cuba, using for that purpose a force so large as to admit of simultaneous debarkation at every important port, that resistance should be crushed by a single blow, and the fiendish threat to renew in Cuba the scenes of San Domingo be put to rest before its execution could be attempted.

That Great Britain, having by an ill-judged emancipation of her slaves, ruined her West India colonies, has sought to involve other slaveholding countries in the same fate, the acts of her statesmen sufficiently demonstration. That her movements in relation to Cuba and other portions of tropical America have been prompted by hostility to the United States does not admit of a doubt. That wiser counsels and better feelings have recently prevailed there is reason to believe. What result will follow the recent change of Ministry remains to be seen.

In the mean time, the greatest evil which could have been inflicted upon us has been wrought - the perversion of the Northern mind, and, to no small extent, the alienation of the Northern people, from the fraternity due to the South.

To this there are many exceptions, and I believe they are daily becoming more numerous. It would be impolitic, ungenerous, and unjust to include all our Northern brethren in a common censure, or withhold the tribute due to the gallant minority who, foot to foot and eye to eye, have, against overwhelming numbers, defended and upheld our character, our conduct, and our rights. I said our character, for the vocabulary of Billingsgate has been enlarged to furnish epithets of abuse of the South, and the council-house of the nation has been used as a rostrum from which to scatter them.

Land of the South, the home and birth-place of Washington, and Jefferson, and Henry, and Madison, and Jackson, and Clay, and Calhoun, can pigmies look down upon your colossal sons? When witlings defame you should it excite more than the smile of derision or the feeling of contempt? Faithful in sunshine and in storm, through good and through evil report, your sons have sat at the temple builded by their fathers; and if it shall ever be possessed by an unclean presence, from which they cannot expurgate it, then it will devolve upon them to construct another which shall not shame the example they emulate.

Our countrymen have two paths before them, either of which the majority of the States and of the people are free to choose. The one leads by the way of usurpation and tortuous construction, through discord and civil strife, to the destruction of this best hope of republican government. The other through peace and prosperity, by the perpetuity of the institutions we inherited, mounts to an eminence which looks down on a continent of equal, sovereign, confederated States. We are near, I believe, to the point at which that selection is to be made. Our fathers feared the convulsion which the election of a President would produce. The next generation regarded the apprehension as unfounded; to us, its realization may be appointed, because to us it has been reserved to witness the organization of a party seeking the possession of the Government not for the common good, not for their own particular benefit, but as the means of executing a hostile purpose toward a portion of the States.

The success of such a party would indeed produce an "irrepressible conflict." To you would be presented the question, will you allow the constitutional Union to be changed into the despotism of a majority, will you become the subjects of a hostile Government, or will you, outside of the Union, assert the equality, the liberty and sovereignty to which you were born? For myself, I say, as I said on a former occasion, in the contingency of the election of a President on the platform of Mr. Seward's Rochester speech, let the Union be dissolved. Let the "great, but not the greatest of evils" come. For as did the great and good Calhoun, from whom is drawn that expression of value, I love and venerate the union of these States - but I love liberty and Mississippi more.

In this we but assert what we would expect the North to declare and maintain if the case were reversed. But could the converse of the proposition exist? Is there one of you who would support a Southern candidate for the Presidency, who avowed his purpose if elected to use the power of his office to crush or to assail a domestic institution of the Northern states? I pause not for an answer; the patriotism you have exhibited on every trying occasion renders a reply unnecessary. The question was but another form of stating an unquestionable fact. We claim nothing which can be rightfully withheld, and are willing to grant as much as we would demand.

Considering the next Presidential election, because of the circumstances, and the distinctness of the issues as the line of breakers, which, if passed, would place us out of all immediate and prospective danger, how very small become all questions of personal preference? And this reminds me that the declaration was made by me last Fall, and which was substantially the same as that made on this occasion, has been misrepresented as an announcement on my part, and with your approbation, of a desire to dissolve the Union if a Northern man should be next chosen for the Presidency! When have we ever drawn such narrow sectionality? Whose votes elected Pierce? Who came en masse to the more dubious contest of Buchanan? It is not for office we strive, but for principle and the ends of justice. Let our standard bearer be he who can carry it to victory; above all, let him be one who will conceal no part of its inscription, but throw its folds most freely to the wind when the storm blows hardest.

Future peace is our object, and this is only to be gained by the unequivocal decision of the issues fairly and distinctly joined.

We have nothing to retract, no new position to assume. Your attitude is the same as that taken in the central meeting and subsequent joint-party convention of 1849. You then asserted that the constitutional recognition and guaranty to slave property placed it beyond the power of Congress, and that the power to legislate for the Territories was to protect the citizen and his property, not to declare what should be property; you then, as did the Legislature of the succeeding year, declared your devoted and cherished attachment to the Union, with the reservation that it should not be changed into an engine of oppression.

Misrepresentation has busily pursued you; but sooner or later, more speedily or slower, I have an abiding faith that truth will yet be vindicated in whole, as it has already been in part.

Sincerely do I pray that your sentiment of nationality may never have occasion to be less - that the national pride in being the citizen of a great country, whose flag is known and respected on every sea and on every land, may increase with increasing years, and grow with growing strength.

I trust that a sanguine temperament does not mislead me to the belief that the mists of sectional prejudice are steadily though slowly floating away, and that a sad experience will not prove to have been delusive, the hope which now shows to me the breaking of a brighter dawn, which promises to our country a happier day than this. But it is the first ray in the east which bids us be up and doing, and the fate of the sluggard will be ours if the promise of success does not wake us to additional preparation, energy, and effort.

My friends, I have detained you long, much longer than was intended, but permit me to add a few words in relation to the nominations which have been made. That they are all capable and well-deserving even their opponents must admit. That which endears them to us must be the only objection which any fair opponent can make to either of them, their unwavering and efficient advocacy of Democratic principles. The controversy for the nominations was of that painful character where defeat must create regret but victory could bring no triumph. All which can be said in favor of the successful candidates, may be equally said of the defeated. To me they are friends whose services are gratefully remembered, all, all dear to me for many and signal acts of kindness, which it can never be in my power to repay, or sufficiently to acknowledge. Of these, among the defeated, who were most ardently supported by their advocates, I venture to say they have already endorsed the nominations, and shoulder to shoulder with their Democratic brethren, will cordially, cheerfully move on in their support.

With the confidence, the affect and gratitude I feel but cannot express, I offer you my best wishes and bid you farewell.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2020-03-26 11:50am

While I was digitizing the above speech anyway, I also decided to digitize the Tribune's unsigned editorial responding to it.
New York Daily Tribune
August 31, 1859

A Southern Manifesto

The speech of Jefferson Davis to the Democracy of Mississippi, assembled in Convention at Jackson, which we print in to-day's Tribune, is a manifesto of more than ordinary importance. Mr. Davis is unquestionably the foremost man of the South at the present day. In the Senate, his preëminence among his slaveholding colleagues is conceded on all hands. Every Northern Senator will admit that from the Southern side of that floor, the most formidable adversary to meet in debate is the thing, pale, polished, intellectual-looking Mississippian, with the unimpassioned demeanor, the habitual courtesy, and the occasional unintentional arrogance which reveals the keen consciousness of great and commanding power. It is a mistake to confound him with declaimers like Keitt, or with vulgar, conceited brawlers like Brown, his senatorial colleague from Mississippi, or with mere scheming politicians like Green, Clingman, Slidell, and Benjamin. He belongs to a higher grade of public men, of whom, formerly, the Slaveholding Democracy was prolific, but of whom, in Congress at least, himself and Mr. Hunter of Virginia are the only examples left. From the weight of their character in their own section, the words of such men, on subjects of national interest, are entitled to national consideration.

Mr. Davis begins with a eulogium upon the Democratic Party, which he styles "the party of stability and progress," to the prevalence of whose principles for fifty years he ascribes the fame, the prosperity, the growth and happiness of the country. Passing over this, which though skillfully put, is not particularly novel, we come to the equally stale assertion that the North is greatly benefitted by the Slavery of the South. "Deduct from their trade and manufactures all which is dependent upon the product of slave labor, their prosperity would fate, and poverty would come upon them 'as one who traveleth.'" Doubtless Mr. Davis knows better than this. His residence in New-England last Summer must have taught him that the prosperity of the North is due to intelligence, industry, and energy, which are qualities of Freedom and not of Slavery. But the character of his ignorant and prejudiced audience made the presentation of such flattering fallacies, perhaps, necessary. The truth is, that all that the trade and manufactures of the North draw from the products of slave labor, is less than is drawn from any one of a dozen of her own crops or her own staples; less than the hay crop, the potato crop, the fruit crop; less, by far, than the annual yield of the forests or the mines. There are many branches of trade and manufacture at the North, the loss of which would be more severely felt than the entire cessation of intercourse with the Slave States. Throughout this part of his speech Mr. Davis argues as if the Free States were wholly commercial and manufacturing communities, "who, for want of land and by rigor of climate, find in the workshops their only industrial employment." What preposterous nonsense is this! The agriculture of the North is far in advance of that of the South, and feeds well and clothes well seventeen millions of people, while that of the Slave States performs the same service imperfectly for less than twelve millions.

The question of reopening the slave-trade, Mr. Davis deals with boldly and frankly. He denies the power of Congress to prohibit the African slave-trade, and makes the admission, which may be of importance in the not distant future, that Congress has just as much right to regulate the inter-State slave-trade as the foreign slave-trade. The law of 1820 against the African traffic, he regards as "one of those departures which result from substituting a temporary expediency for immutable truth." Even considerations of public safety or interest "could not justify the Government in branding as infamous the source from which the chief part of our laboring population is derived. It is this feature of the law which makes it offensive to us, and stimulates us to strive for its repeal."

Mr. Davis, however, regards the repeal of the laws against the slave-trade as hopeless for the present. Nor, if they were repealed, is he quite sure that it would be good policy for Mississippi to avail herself of the opening. "Her place in history; her rank among the States; her power to maintain natural and constitutional rights, depend upon her people - the free, intelligent, high-minded sons of the governing race." Too great an influx of negroes might be detrimental; but this view, he significantly adds, "is not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New-Mexico, or to any future acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande - all of which countries can only be developed by slave labor in some of its forms."
From the consideration of the slave-trade, Mr. Davis passes to that of Slavery. "The judgments of God are not as those of men," he piously ejaculates. "When the Spaniards discovered this continent, and reduced the sons of Shem to bondage, unsuited to that condition they pined and rapidly wasted away in unproductive labor. The good Bishop Las Casas, with philosophical humanity, inaugurated the importation of the race of Ham; they came to relieve from an unnatural state the dwellers in tents, and to fulfill their own destiny - that of being the servant of servants."
A profound theologian is Mr. Davis. First, by a bold stroke in ethnology, he solves the perplexing problem of the origin of the American Indians by calling them the sons of Shem - a solution for which, we need scarcely say, there is not the slightest authority in Scripture, history, or tradition. Next, the negroes are the race of Ham, for which there is just as little authority. By Ham, or the children of Ham, the Scriptures designated the Egyptians. In the last century, when it was commonly believed from certain passages in Herodotus, and from the erroneous statements of a few travelers, that the ancient Egyptians were negroes, the term Ham was applied to the whole African race, purely because they were believed to be of the same origin with the Egyptians. Modern ethnological science has, however, shown conclusively that the Egyptians were not negroes, but were a brown race of Asiatic origin, of the same general stock with the Arabs, the Jews, the Syrians, &c. That being the case, it follows that the ascription of the lineage of Ham to the negroes is a sheer blunder. Yet the Pro-Slavery casuists of the South, while they eagerly accept the demonstration which shows that the learned and civilized Egyptians were not negroes, just as eagerly cling to the notion of the Hametic origin of the Africans which depended entirely on their identity of race with the people of Egypt.

But again, it is well known to all who know anything of history, that the slaves of the ancients were not negroes, but whites, and the whitest of the whites, the Britons, the Gauls, the Germans, the Thracians, and the fair and finely-formed tribes of the Caucasus. It was of the Northern barbarian, and not of the Southern negro, that the Greeks and Romans made slaves. Spartacus, the leader of the great servile insurrection in Italy, was a Thracian from the banks of the Danube, and the slaves who revolted with him were mostly from the same region. The slaves of the Hebrews were of the "heathen round about them;" that is to say, Phenicians, Syrians, Arabs, &c. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that the Hebrews ever held a single negro slave. The nearest negro nations were nearly two thousand miles from Palestine, and were entirely cut off from intercourse with the Hebrews. And in the Middle Ages the slaves were still of white races. The great slave-holding Mahommedan nations of the north of Africa, through the Middle Ages, and down almost to our own day, drew their slaves chiefly from Europe, from Christian prisoners of war. According to Mr. Davis, then, and to the new-light prophets of Southern theology, the plans of Providence were thwarted, the scheme of the Scriptures was unfulfilled, and the accursed children of Ham evaded or defied their destiny for more than four thousand years - that is, from the Deluge down to the beginning of the fifteenth century of our era, when a Spanish Bishop, the good Las Casas, "with philosophical humanity," and in the true spirit of exegesis, "inaugurated the importation" of Guinea negroes into America, and unfolded to the Christian world the right interpretation of Holy Writ!

To expose all the fallacies to which Mr. Davis has given utterance on this topic would consume much more space than we care to give the subject. for example, he asserts that "no where has the negro shown capacity to found civil government" - in the face of the existence of hundreds of negro States in Africa, where civil governments existed for ages before Mississippi was founded; "and at no time has he asserted his equality by separating himself from the master race to establish an independent community of his own." Has Mr. Davis never heard of Hayti?

Mr. Davis takes decided ground against the "non-intervention" doctrine of Mr. Douglas in regard to Slavery in the Territories. He emphatically maintains the right of Congress to legislate for the protection of slave property in the Territories, and declares that the acquiescence of the South in that doctrine at the time of the Compromises of 1850 was only "to gain the time necessary for the people to reflect and rally." In other words, it was only a tub thrown to the Northern whale to divert its attention for a while. we commend this candid avowal of the policy of the South to those who are yet disposed to rely upon the moderation and good faith of the slaveholders, or who doubt the existence of a settled purpose of encroachment on the free institutions of the country. The march of aggression may pause for a moment and may even seem to yield to opposition, but let that opposition for a moment relax and it will become evident that the seeming relinquishment was only a trick to gain time.

With regard to Cuba, Mr. Davis urges its acquisition upon many grounds - among others, for the reason that the Island would be of paramount importance to a Southern Confederacy, whenever that shall be formed, and its formation he seems to regard as almost inevitable. This is a view of the Cuba question which is assuredly well calculated to attract the attention of the "Union-loving" Democracy of the North. No better field for the exercise of their peculiarly disinterested devotion to their Southern rulers is likely to offer than this.

In conclusion, Mr. Davis explicitly says: "In the contingency of a President on the platform of Mr. Seward's Rochester speech, let the Union be dissolved." As Mr. Seward's speech was in accordance with the Republican platform of 1856, this may fairly be construed into a declaration on the part of Mr. Davis that the election of a Republican President will be the signal for an attempt to dissolve the union of the States. We do not believe that the attempt will be made; but we believe nothing will prevent its being made unless it be the fear of the consequences, personal and political, likely to follow the attempt. What those consequences will be we do not now propose to show. We suspect, however, that if a Republican President shall be elected in 1860, and Mr. Davis and the State of Mississippi undertake to rebel against the Government, it is probable that any dissolution that may ensue will be the dissolution, not of the American Republic, but of the connection between the souls and bodies of Mr. Jefferson Davis and his fellow-traitors.

Meanwhile, we hope no one will fail to read this speech. It presents in a concentrated form all that the best intellect of the slaveholding class has to say on the whole range of our politics as they now stand. It is the manifesto of the South. Let her be heard and indeed calmly and reasonably. The effect of her argument on any well-informed Northern reader will only be amazement that the slaveholding class has really so little to urge in its own vindication.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

User avatar
Rogue 9
Scrapping TIEs since 1997
Posts: 18234
Joined: 2003-11-12 01:10pm
Location: Classified

Re: Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

Post by Rogue 9 » 2020-03-29 11:25am

Speech of Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois to a public gathering in New Orleans after the election of 1858. This is transcribed from the December 16, 1858 issue of the New York Times, and includes the entire article as well as the speech, though the speech is the vast bulk of it.
Douglas at the South

Views of Mr. Douglas on Slavery, State Rights, Territorial Acquisition, Cuba, Central America, and Asia
His Speech at New-Orleans, Dec. 6
From the New-Orleans Delta, Dec. 8

The Hon. Pierre Soule introduced Judge Douglas to the audience in the following speech:

Fellow-Citizens: On no occasion could I have been called upon to perform a more grateful task than that which is assigned to me as presiding officer of this meeting. I shall discharge it briefly. Nor, knowing as I do, your anxiety to hear the distinguished guest you have so enthusiastically welcomed along you, I cannot wish to keep you in painful suspense by any remarks I might offer. Tendering you, therefore, my humble thanks for the distinction with which it has been your pleasure to honor me, I will at once invite him to these hustings.

Judge Douglas: This immense concourse of people which you see congregated here, have thus assembled to hear you on those great doctrines of National and State policy which you have so triumphantly vindicated in that ever-memorable contest in which you had to encounter, in full array, the influence and power of a reckless, disorganizing and fierce fanaticism, combined with the dark maneuvers and the perfidy of profligate politicians. But for your indomitable firmness and the enlightened patriotism of the Democracy of Illinois, which struck these with impotency, you and that Democracy had been surrendered over to the tender mercies of a foe, who, if victorious, would have strewed this glorious country of ours with such seeds of trouble and discord as would have imperiled the very existence of the Republic, and perhaps blasted the last hope on which hung with our own liberty the liberties of the world. Come, then, you, the intrepid and invincible tribune, the independent and uncompromising Senator; come, and speak forth with that boldness which you have so successfully displayed in the councils of the nation and before your own people at home, and say where were and where still are the designs of your enemies and ours. Be fearless. You are in the midst of men who love truth and who value above all other things moral courage and political honesty.

Senator Douglas then spoke as follows:

Mr. President and Citizens of New-Orleans: It was with much hesitation and no small degree of reluctance that I was induced to give my consent to address you on this occasion. I had just passed through a fierce conflict in my own State, which required me to perform more speaking than was either agreeable to my wishes, or consistent with my own strength. When I determined to visit New-Orleans, it was only on private business of an imperative character; and it was my desire to arrive and depart as quietly as possible, and without, in any way, connecting myself with politics. When I approached your city, as I supposed, unheralded and unknown, I was amazed at the magnificent reception which was extended to me on the levee of your magnificent city, by so vast a concourse of people, by the municipal authorities, by the citizens in their individual capacity, by my own political friends, and by men of all political parties. This was a compliment which filled my heart with gratitude, and did not leave me at liberty to decline the first request you might make of me in return. I have, therefore, yielded to the solicitations addressed to me, to make a few remarks on the political topics which now agitate the public mind throughout the length and breadth of our glorious Republic.

And, moreover, I have one gratification in yielding to the request. I desire to know whether the principles, which are admitted to be sound and orthodox in the Free States, can pass current in the Slave States. So long as we live under a common Constitution, binding on the people of all the States, any political creed which cannot be proclaimed in Louisiana as boldly as in Illinois, must be unsound and unsafe. With the view of testing this question, I shall not attempt to enter upon any new views, or propound any original ideas, but simply discuss these existing questions, in the same way as I have always done before an Illinois audience. The tendency of events during the past fifteen years has been to force the organization of political parties on a geographical basis, to array the North against the South, embittering the South against the North, under the misapprehension that there is some irreconcilable antagonism between the interests of the one and the other, which prevents harmony between them. For the last twenty-five years I have been in public life; fifteen years of which have been spent in the Congress of the United States, and the whole of my life has been devoted to the discovery and elucidation of some common ground on which Northern and Southern men might stand on terms of equality and justice. If you will take pans to examine the history of this sectional strife, you will find that the whole contest has arisen from an attempt on the part of the Federal Government to assume, or usurp, if you will, the exercise of powers not conferred by the Federal Constitution. When this Government was formed, the confederacy consisted of thirteen States - twelve of which were Slaveholding States, while one was what is called a Free State. Of course, had the doctrine then prevailed which was proclaimed by my opponent, Mr. Lincoln, and by Mr. Seward in New-York, and by the leaders of the Abolition or Black Republican Party throughout the North; the doctrine that uniformity in the domestic institutions of the several States is necessary - that a house divided against itself cannot stand; that this Government, divided between Free States and Slave States, cannot endure; that it must be all the one thing or the other; what do you suppose, had such a doctrine prevailed when the Constitution was made, would have been the result? Suppose that Mr. Seward himself had been a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution, and when the members came to affix their signatures to the instrument, this doctrine of uniformity had been proclaimed - this doctrine that the domestic institutions of the several States must be the same - what would have been the effect? Would the one Free State have out-voted the twelve Slave States? On the contrary, would not the twelve Slave States have out-voted the one Free State, and thus Slavery have been established in all the States forever by an irrevocable provision of the Constitution? Why, then, was this not done? Simply because the sages who formed our Government had more at heart the great principles of civil liberty than the desire of sectional power or sectional advantage - because they wished to establish the principle that each State should possess the sovereign power of legislation over its own domestic institutions - to form them and modify them to suit themselves, retaining Slavery so long as they might desire to retain it, and abolishing it whenever they chose. This Government was formed on the principle of State Rights and State Sovereignty. It is a confederacy of sovereign and independent States, having a certain common purpose, each retaining the right to manage its own affairs, and maintaining its own liberties inside of its own jurisdiction.

It is a fatal heresy to proclaim the doctrine that there out to be or can be uniformity among the different States of the Union, as to their local and domestic institutions. Uniformity is neither possible nor desirable. Our fathers knew, when they made this Government for so many different communities, that there must necessarily be a corresponding variety, requiring different laws and domestic institutions adapted to the wants and characteristics of each separate locality. They knew that variety and dissimilarity of local and domestic institutions to be an essential element in a confederated form of Government. On this point you find a vast difference between the Abolition and Black Republican party, on the one hand, and the Democratic Party, on the other hand. It is true that there may be some individual exceptions to this classification, but not many. The effort had previously been made, principally in the North, to array the North against the South, and the South against the North, and thus embittering them against each other, until no Southern man would vote for a Northern candidate, and no Northern man would trust a Southern candidate. I can well understand how unscrupulous politicians in the North, who prefer their own aggrandizement to the peace of their country, and prohibit the perpetuity of this Union, may advocate this doctrine, as they belong to the stronger section. But how long was it before that doctrine prevailed? Did we of the North desire sectional power so long as we were the minority and you the majority? So long as the Free States were the minority section, the North adhered to the doctrine that each State should manage its own domestic affairs without interference from the other States or the Federal Government. But when, in the progress of events the Free States increased till they obtained the majority in the House of Representatives, and then a tie in the Senate, ambitious men found that by organizing sectional parties, and belonging to the strongest section, they could ride into power. Thus the Black Republican or Abolition party is sectional in its organization, in its principles, and in its whole line of policy. Every argument they use is addressed to Northern ambition, and is directed against the Southern people and Southern institutions. Of course the Abolition Party of the North had a baneful influence on some Southern people, by inducing them to try to form a Southern party in opposition to the Northern Abolition Party. Thus, you see, the attempt was made to introduce the test, not whether a representative is faithful to his own State, and to the Federal compact, but whether he is true to the North or faithful to the South. Let me remind you that the Constitution recognizes no such divisions. It recognizes no North and no South, but one Republic under one Constitution, and thirty-two independent States, bound together by one Federal compact. Hence I say to you that I owe no allegiance either to the North or to the South. My allegiance is to my own State, and through that State to the Federal Government, and no other power on earth. Let this principle be observed and acted upon in good faith, and there will always be peace between the North and the South, and between all the States of this glorious confederacy. When I addressed this argument to Northern men - and especially to large crowds of Abolitionists, as I have often done - I was answered that Slavery is so great and monstrous an evil, that their consciences will not permit them to be quiet in regard to it, even after they have performed their whole duty in their own State. They bring forward the Declaration of Independence, and read from it with wonderful satisfaction. I can give you their dogmas, as presented in every Abolition catechism. They take the Declaration of Independence, as I have said, and read this passage: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Then they stop and say, "Doesn't that Declaration tell us that all men are created equal? Is not a negro a man, and is he not, therefore the equal of the white man? Was he not made equal by his Creator, and is his equality not, therefore inalienable by Divine law? Then how can you reduce him to an inferior position by any human law?

By this specious, but sophistical argument, they have succeeded in imposing on some weak-minded men, and some old women and children, until they have educated a generation who really believe that the negro is their brother. And I must be permitted to tell you that many, even of your Southern men, have quailed under that argument, and failed to meet it. My answer is this: When the framers of the Declaration declared that all men were equal, they had no reference whatever to the negro. They were speaking of white men - men of European birth and European descent. They had no reference to the negro or any other inferior and dependent race. And now for the proof of this point, as I have submitted it at home. You must bear in mind that when the Declaration was made, the Colonies were all slaveholding. Every man that signed the Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency. Bearing these facts in mind, tell me if you believe that those men were such hypocrites as to admit the negroes belonging to them to be their equals by divine right, and yet hold those negroes in Slavery the balance of their lives. Any man who asserts that the signers of the Declaration had reference to negroes in that document, declares every signer to have been a hypocrite, and worse than a hypocrite. I believe they spoke of white men, men of European birth and descent, without any reference to negroes or any other inferior race.

I repeat that this Government was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, to be administered by white men, and none others. It is true that then, as well as now, we had among us other races - inferior races - incapable of self-government, and necessarily dependent on others for protection.

But it is a law of humanity, a law of civilization, that whenever a man, or race of men, show themselves incapable of managing their own affairs, they must consent to be governed by those who are capable of performing the duty. It is on this principle that you establish those institutions of charity, for the support of the blind, or the deaf and the dumb, or the insane, that those incapable of governing themselves must be governed by others. In accordance with this principle I assert that the negro race, under all circumstances, at all times and in all countries, has shown itself incapable of self-government. And it has been asserted, and I think with much force, that it has attained a higher degree of development of moral culture and of civilization in the Southern States of this Union, in the condition of Slavery, than in any other part of the world. From these considerations, I arrive at the conclusion that the negro race being inferior, does not form any component element in the governing power of the American system of government. Yet he is a human being, and as such is entitled to all of the privileges and immunities which can be extended to him consistently with the safety of the society in which he lives. I presume that all men, North and South, of whatever politics, religion, or prejudices, will assent to the principle that humanity compels us all to extend to the negro, and all other dependent races, all the privileges, immunities and facilities, consistent with the good of the society in which they reside. Then, you will ask me, as the Abolitionists have asked me, what are these privileges and immunities - what are their nature and extent? I will return the same answer I have so often given them. It is a question for each State to decide for itself, independent of any other State. Illinois has decided the question for herself. We have adopted a line of policy which has given satisfaction to us. If you do not like it, though we may regret your dislike, we must be permitted to say that it is none of your business. If you do not like our laws on the subject of negro Slavery, or any other domestic concern, stay at home and live under such laws as you choose to make. We have a law in our State that a negro shall not be a citizen, nor either shall he be a slave. But during our territorial existence, when the settlers were from Slaveholding States, bringing their slave-property with them, the Territorial Legislature, in defiance of the celebrated ordinance of 1787, established Slavery in Illinois, and maintained it for years. They then abolished it, because, from the circumstances of our climate, and soil, and productions, it was found not to be profitable or conducive to our welfare. If we had lived further South, in the districts which produce sugar, and cotton, and rice, we would have seen just as much virtue in slave-labor as you do in Louisiana. And, perhaps, if some of the more excitable of our Southern friends had happened to live among the granite hills of New-Hampshire, they would entertain very different views from those they now hold. This question of Slavery is not a question of legislation at all, but of climate, soil and self-interest. You can establish Slavery nowhere by any law of Congress, or a Territorial Legislature, or by any other power contrary to the will of the people where it is to exist; and, in my opinion, you should never be permitted to force it down the throats of an unwilling people.

Hence, I say, that the people of Illinois, finding that Slavery did not suit them, abolished it. I will state, too, that our kind friends over in Kentucky, when their servants become old and valueless, and a tax on their masters, showed their humanity by emancipating them and sending them into Illinois. This was also the case in other Slave States, till Illinois was in danger of becoming a free negro colony, when she found it necessary to provide for her own protection by enacting that no more negroes should come to Illinois to reside, whether free or slaves. Since she had determined not to have Slavery, she would not establish a free negro colony for your benefit. In a word, she says to the Slave States, take care of your own negroes, make just such laws as you choose and be responsible to God and to your posterity. Let us alone and we will let you alone. That is the policy of Illinois in regard to Slavery and the negro question. If you say you do not like that it can not be helped. Illinois, however, has just as much right to adopt her policy as you in Louisiana have to adopt a different policy. We are prepared to make this bargain with you, or rather to maintain inviolate the bargain our fathers made in the Federal Constitution, to mind your business and let us mind ours. Under that principle this Union can exist forever - divided into Free and Slave States, each State having the right to preserve and retain Slavery so long as it chooses, and abolish it whenever it pleases. That is what I mean when I say that the Democratic Party is a party devoted to State Rights and State Sovereignty, in opposition to that other policy which concentrates the liberties and rights of the people in the Federal Government.

The discussion of this question in the North has so far modified public opinion as to induce a willingness to acquiesce in its application to the States, while the Black Republicans deny the propriety of applying it to the Territories.

On this point the Abolitionists assert the right of Congress, under the Constitution, to form and establish, for the people of the Territories, their domestic institutions, without their consent. The Democratic Party deny that Congress can rightfully exercise any such authority.

We say that for Congress to say to any people, you shall or shall not have such or such institutions, is a violation of the great principles of our Federal Government. In the discussion of these questions, I sometimes go back to the history of the Revolution, and show that it involved the same principles when the British Government attempted to pass laws for the American colonies, without giving them a representation in Parliament.

In opposition to this claim our fathers rose up and said: We will obey the laws of Parliament, which are imperial laws, and not local laws - but we will not submit to local laws affecting our domestic institutions, and passed without giving us a fair representation in Parliament. The Democratic Party says that Congress has no right to establish or to prohibit Slavery. We say that the Territories should be open to the citizens of the United States to go there with their property, and subject alike to the laws when they arrive there. But an objection is raised by some of our Southern friends, and I have been asked here and at home what I meant by the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories, and whether we abide by the Dred Scott decision. In a discussion with my opponent, Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, Illinois, the question was put to me whether, in the event that the people or Legislature of a Territory were hostile to Slavery, there was any lawful means by which Slavery could be excluded. I said yes, and proceeded to state the means. I will state them here to you. The Democracy of Illinois, in the first place, accepts the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott, as an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with that decision, we hold that slaves are property, and hence on an equality with all other kinds of property, and the owner of a slave has the same right to move into a Territory and carry his slave property with him, as the owner of any other property has to go there and carry his property. All citizens of the United States, no matter whether they come from the North or the South, from a free State or a slave State, can enter a Territory with their property on equal footing.

But I apprehend when you arrive there with your property you are subject to the local law of the Territory. How can your slave property be protected without local law? The Constitution gives you a right to go into a Territory and carry your slave property with you; but it does not punish any man for stealing your slave, when you get there. It does not punish a man for stealing any other property, when you get there. Congress never yet passed a law to punish crime or protect property in any organized Territory.

Congress never yet passed a criminal code for any organized territory. It has simply organized the Territory and established a Legislature, that Legislature being vested with legislative power over all rightful subjects of legislation, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. Hence, whatever jurisdiction the Legislature possesses over other property, it has over slave property - no more, no less. Let me ask you, as Southern men, can you hold slaves anywhere unless protected by the local law; would not the inaction of the local Legislature, its refusal to provide a slave code, or to punish offenses against that species of property, exclude Slavery just as effectually as a Constitutional prohibition? Would it not have that effect in Louisiana and in every other State? No one will deny it. Then, let me ask you, if the people of a Territory refuse to pass a slave code, how are [you] going to make them do it? When you give them power to legislate on all rightful subjects of legislation, it becomes a question for them to decide, and not for me.

If the local Legislature imposes a tax on horses, or any other kind of property, you may think it a hardship, but how are you going to help it? Just so it is with regard to traffic in liquors. If you are dealing in liquors, you have the same right to take your liquor into the Territory that anybody else has to take any other species of property. You may pass through and take your liquors ''in transitu'', and you will be protected in your right of property under the Constitution of the United States; but if you open the packages they become subject to the local law; and should the Maine law happen to prevail in the Territory, you had better travel with your liquors. Hence, if the local Legislature has the same right over slave property as over every other species of property, what right have you to complain of that equality? And let me say to you that if you oppose this just doctrine, if you attempt to exempt slaves from the same rules that apply to every other kind of property, you will abandon your strongest grounds of defense against the assaults of the Black Republicans and Abolitionists. If the people of a territory are in favor of Slavery they will make laws to protect it; if opposed to Slavery they will not make those laws, and you cannot compel them to do it. It comes simply to this - they don't want it, they won't have it, and you can't force it upon them. But I will tell you when they will have it, and when Slavery will find protection in a territory, it is when the territory lies in those latitudes and climates which adapt it to the profitable production of rice and sugar and cotton, and where Slave labor will be remunerative. In those territories the people will want Slavery, and will have it in spite of Abolitionism and all its power. Permit me to say that there is no line running along 36° 30', or any other parallel of latitude, and separating Free territory from Slave territory, irrespective of climate, soil and productions; but there is a line, or belt of country, meandering through the valleys and over the mountain tops, which is a natural barrier between Free territory and Slave territory, on the south of which are to be found the productions suitable to Slave labor, while in the north exists a country adapted to Free labor alone. Thus, Slavery will exist wherever soil, climate, and productions demand it, and it will exist nowhere else. Now if climate and soil, and self-interest will regulate this question, why should we quarrel about it? When you arrive at a certain distance to the north of the line there cannot be any doubt of the result; and so, when you got a certain distance south the result will be equally certain the other way. But in the great central regions, where there may be some doubt as to the effect of natural causes, who ought to decide the question except the people residing there, who have gone there to live with their wives and children? Any party which attempts, by a system of coercion, to force any institutions into regions not adapted to them, violates the great principles on which our Government is founded. Thus you have my views on the subject of Slavery in the territories. Practically, it amounts simply to this: If the people want Slavery they will have it, if they don't want it they won't have it, and you can't force it upon them. If these principles be recognized and adhered to we can live in peace and harmony together; but just as surely as you attempt to force the people to have Slavery, against their will, in regions to which it is not adapted, fanaticism will take control of the Federal Government and attempt to force it out of other countries adapted to it. It was on these principles that, last Winter, I resisted the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution. I have said, what I repeat here, that my opposition was not based upon any provision in that Constitution relating to the subject of Slavery. I then said that if Kansas wanted to be a slaveholding State, she had a right to be so, and if she wanted to be a free State, she had the same right. If the Lecompton Constitution was an embodiment of the people's will, it ought to have been accepted. If it was not an embodiment of their will, it ought not to have been forced upon them. And now let me reason with you, as Southern men, on this question. If we are going to live in peace together, we must act in harmony in the application of all just and fair principles. Suppose that, last Winter, we had had an Abolition President, an Abolition majority in both Houses of Congress, and that Kansas had had an Abolition Governor and authorities. Suppose that by some means - just such means as those by which the Lecompton Convention was called - a Convention had assembled composed of Abolitionists. Suppose the understanding to have been that the Constitution was to be submitted to the people; that the Convention had assembled, and it was discovered that the Pro-Slavery men were in a majority of five to one in the Territory. Suppose, under these circumstances, the Convention had refused to submit the Constitution to the people, and had attempted to force an Abolition Convention down the throats of a Pro-Slavery people against their will. Would you, the people of the South, have submitted to such tyranny? Would you have suffered an Abolition Constitution to be forced down the throats of the people of any territory in opposition to their wishes, more especially had such a Constitution contained a provision that it should not be changed for seven years, and not then except by a two-thirds vote; so that the minority having once fastened it on the people, that same minority could perpetuate it forever in opposition to the wishes of the majority.

Now, if I do not mistake the Southern character and Southern patriotism, you would never have submitted patiently and calmly to such an attempt to violate the great principles of self-government. I am not going to enter upon a discussion as to whether this Constitution was the act of the people of Kansas. If it was not their act, then I was right in opposing it; if it was their act, then you can draw your own inferences. I will only say now, that it was sent back to the people of Kansas under the provisions of the English bill, which submitted the question in an indirect manner, and rejected by a vote of eight to one. Under these circumstances who can say that it ever was the act of the people of Kansas. But I am not going to reopen that question. It is now settled. Let the asperities growing out of the controversy die with the controversy. All I ask is, that in future we recognize the right of the people of a Territory to form a Free State, or a Slave State, as they may choose, and come into the Union on an equality with the other States.

A few words more and I have done. I find that I am getting so hoarse from previous efforts and recent exposure, that I cannot speak much longer. I will only say to you, in conclusion, that if we recognize and observe this principle of State rights and self-government for the people of the Territories, there will be peace forever between the North and South, and American will fulfill the glorious destiny which the Almighty has marked out for her. She will remain an example for all nations, expanding as her people increase and her interests demand more territory. I am not in favor of the acquisition of territory by fraud, violence, or improper means of any kind; on the contrary, I would never permit the Federal Government to be an instrument in the hands of foreign powers to carry out their purposes upon the American Continent. Let us adopt a policy consistent with our destiny, and then bide our time. Let us apply these principles and we shall continue ever one nation, but separate and sovereign States under the Constitution, as our fathers and its founders desired and designed.

Mr. Douglas was apparently about to bring his remarks to a close at this point, when, in response to calls of "Cuba," "Cuba," from the audience, he proceeded thus:

It is our duty to have Cuba, and you cannot prevent it if you try. It is folly to debate the acquisition of Cuba. It naturally belongs to the American continent. It guards the mouth of the Mississippi River, which is the heart of the American continent and the body of the American nation. Its acquisition is a matter of time only. Our Government should adopt the policy of receiving Cuba as soon as a fair, just and peaceful opportunity shall be presented. Whether that moment be next year or the year after, whenever that occasion arises and the opportunity presents itself, it should be embraced.

The same is true of Central America. It will not do to say we have territory enough. When the Constitution was formed, there was enough, yet, in a few years afterwards, we needed more. We acquired Louisiana and Florida, Texas and California, just as the increase of our population and our interests demanded. When, in 1850, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was sent to the Senate for ratification, I fought it to the death. They then asked what I wanted of Central America. I told them I did not want it then, but the time would come when we must have it. They then asked what my objection to the treaty was. I told them I objected to that clause of it which said that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever buy, annex, colonize, or acquire any portion of Central America. I said I would never consent to a treaty with any foreign Power, pledging ourselves not to do in the future whatever interest or necessity might compel us to do. I was then told by veteran Senators, as my distinguished friend well knows, that Central America was so far off that we should never want it. I told them then, "Yes; a good way off - half way to California, and on the direct road to it." I then said it was our right and duty to open all the highways between the Atlantic and the Gulf States and our possessions on the Pacific. I said I would enter into no treaty with Great Britain or any other Government concerning the affairs of the American Continent. And here, without a breach of confidence, I may be permitted to state a conversation which took place at that time between myself and the British Minister, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, on that point. He took occasion to reason with me that my position with regard to the Treaty was unjust and untenable; that the Treaty was fair because it was reciprocal, and it was reciprocal because it pledged that neither Great Britain nor the United States would ever purchase, colonize, or acquire any territory in Central America. I told him that it would be fair if they would add one word to the Treaty - so that it should read that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever occupy or hold dominion over Central America or Asia. But he said: "You have no interests in Asia." "No," said I, "and you have none in Central America." "But," said he, "you can never establish any rights in Asia." "No," said I, "and we don't mean that you shall ever establish any in America." I told him it would be no more respectful for us to ask that pledge in reference to Asia, than for Great Britain to ask it from us in reference to Central America.

If experience shall continue to prove, what the past may be considered to have demonstrated, that those little Central American powers cannot maintain self-government, the interests of Christendom require that some power should preserve order for them. Hence, I maintain that we should adopt and observe a line of policy in unison with our own interests and our destiny. I do not wish to force things. We live in a rapid age. Events crowd upon each other with marvelous speed. I do not want territory any faster than we can occupy, Americanize and civilize it. I am no fillibuster. I am opposed to unlawful expeditions; but on the other hand, I am opposed to this country acting as a miserable constabulary for France and England.

I am in favor of expansion as fast as consistent with our interest and the increase and development of our population and resources. But I am not in favor of that policy unless the great principle of non-intervention and the right of the people to decide the question of Slavery, and all other domestic institutions, for themselves shall be maintained. If that principle prevail, we have a future before us more glorious than that of any other people that ever existed. Our Republic will endure for thousands of years. Progress will be the law of its destiny; it will gain new strength with every State brought into the Confederacy. Then there will be peace and harmony between the Free States and the Slave States. The more degrees of latitude and longitude embraced beneath our Constitution, the better. The greater the variety of productions, the better; for then we shall have the principles of free trade between the important staples of the world, making us the greatest planting as well as the greatest manufacturing, the greatest commercial as well as the greatest agricultural power on the globe.

These are my views in regard to our foreign relations. They are questions I had not intended to discuss; and I should not have done so if some gentleman in the crowd had not called my attention to them. My votes in Congress have always been in harmony with that line of policy. It matters not how far you acquire more territory, or how much or how little you wish to acquire. Expansion is the law of our existence; when we cease to grow, we commence to decline. Hence our course is onward, on the principle established by our fathers, under divine inspiration, as I believe, in the formation of the Government.

And now permit me to return my grateful acknowledgements for the kindness with which you have listened to me. It has been my desire to speak to you has I have before spoken to mixed audiences in my own State. This I have done, with the exception that I have treated the Abolitionists with more mildness than I have been in the habit of doing when I meet them face to face. Since I never could appreciate their conduct in standing on the shores of Lake Michigan and shaking their fists at the people on the Gulf of Mexico, I could not bring myself to stand here in New-Orleans, upon the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and shake my fist at the people on Lake Michigan.
It's Rogue, not Rouge!

HAB | KotL | VRWC/ELC/CDA | TRotR | The Anti-Confederate | Sluggite | Gamer | Blogger | Staff Reporter | Student | Musician

Post Reply